There's barely any point examining the app on its merits.
The mere existence of the app shows resistance to the government's attempts at establishing something approaching a police state. They are against the app for that reason. They don't really care about what it does or does not do. It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" and they'd still happily claim it endangers officers lives.
(the fact that they're also able to attack independent media at the same time just makes it all the more alluring target)
Genuine question: is sharing the location or distribution of information about police presence illegal? I assume this would be treated differently if it involved military positions, but I'm curious about how the law applies in this case.
Waze is another example of an app where users can share information about police presence or roadblocks, while useful to some, could also be seen as having negative implications depending on the context.
While your question is meaningful and well intentioned, let me point out that it may be inconsequential. The legality of an action is moot when the regime ignores and defies the entire basis of those laws - the constitution. It's like trying to evaluate yourself against a standard that is no longer followed.
Instead, evaluate yourself on the basis of your standing with the regime. If they dislike you for any reason including your skin color, they will find some sort of national security threat in your actions. Or they may punish you first and then claim the inability to correct it. On the other hand if they need you, they will completely ignore your actions, including even leaking of extremely sensitive information to unauthorized individuals.
yeah, it's more a question of "has america's justice system been reduced to arbitrary persecution of things the president or his executives deem a threat to America".
Because that's basically what's unfolding under fascism means.
Even this is stretching it. It's not as though the Andrew Jackson administration was doing deportations (besides the Trail of Tears, which was euphemistically referred to as a deportation campaign). The practice of criminalizing immigration enforcement didn't coincide with any amendment to the Constitution, which is itself only nominally even part of U.S. law anymore.
And a bullet is cheaper then incarceration. But we have a duty to human rights, which isn't always cost effective or expedient. But if those rights are lost for anyone they're lost for everyone. After all, how do you prove you're owed due process in the absence of said due process?
Prosecutions would be much cheaper if defendants couldn't get court appointed lawyers. Or if we didn't have the exclusionary rule. Or if prosecutions didn't need to turn over Brady evidence.
Are you willing to pay for these things? It'd be much more efficient for a cop to simply murder anybody suspected of a crime. Efficiency should not be the goal when it comes to people's rights.
Most countries don't give you a court hearing for being in the country without a visa or other authorization. Being shipped into a detention facility until you can be deported is the norm here.
Genuinely curious for a good faith answer: one administration allows tens of millions of people into the country during its term. You are saying that every individual is owed multiple court hearings, the full gamut which is usually used for people overstaying a visa or something. A system equipped to handle a relatively small number of people.
The court system cannot possibly fulfill these tens of millions of cases in any reasonable time frame. These people will be in court for the rest of our lives and in the meantime they will have children and ultimately be allowed to stay forever by some future administration. Which is basically the same as just making them citizens.
Do you have a proposed solution other than decades worth of court dates? It doesn’t really seem like the other side has a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever.
Or maybe I’m missing something and haven’t heard the other side’s arguments.
They just increased the budget for ice prisons form 3 billion to 40 billion, and did not increase the budget for the legal infrastructure needed to adequately process everyone.
Why they need to do is increase funding for judges, and make the process faster. Aka, like what the Larkin bill did, but the GOP killed that, because solving the immigration issues would be bad for them electorally.
Is seems like the plan is to just lock people up... And then nothing, except maybe deport them to random countries and let them sort them out.
Keep in mind that this has not been a 'biden' issue. The illegal immigrants already have in many cases been in the US for decades, due to ag/construction/hospitality wanting labor at rates Americans were unwilling to work.
Instead, of actually addressing the issue (why are people allowed to hire illegal immigrants in the first place, seems like cutting off the job supply would work as well).
But the question becomes, why are they increasing the infrastructure for locking people up, but not the infrastructure for due process, seems like they want to throw out due process.
Keep in mind, the people they grab off the streets have not all been illegal immigrants, many are legal on work/student/refugee visas.
And maybe you disagree that these people should have been allowed visas in the first place, but there are ways to change those laws.
This would be more convincing if you told us how many judges are currently working, how many cases they handle in a year, and how hiring that many judges would be able to allow quicker turn around, as is, it could be not resolving the issue he described, and result in them waiting around for 20 years for a trial instead of 30 years.
Let's not continue using propaganda numbers around undocumented immigrants. There's not 10s of millions of illegal immigrants. There's roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in total, and that number has _decreased_ since the early 2000s (when it was closer to 12 million).
A decent percentage of these immigrants are seasonal. A very, very small percentage of the total of undocumented immigrants have criminal histories. Focusing efforts on violent criminals is reasonable, but that doesn't meet the propaganda numbers from the current administration. Deporting tens of thousands of people just doesn't rally hate the same way.
Rather than spending time and money building concentration camps, building out secret police (ICE), and deporting people without due process, we could be fixing our immigration system.
Let's make work visas that allow migrant workers to work seasonally. Let's add paths to citizenship to migrant workers. Let's prioritize fast paths to citizenship for students, especially those with masters and PHDs. Let's introduce a point system to encourage immigration of the best and brightest from high demand countries, allowing them prioritized visas, PRs and naturalization. Let's fix the DREAMER situation by providing those folks clear paths to citizenship.
The reason the immigration situation doesn't get better is because republicans need it to be broken. They use undocumented immigrants as a group to target hate against, which rallies their base.
I don't believe that conservatives want more illegal immigration. I instead believe that conservatives would rather do violence against illegal immigrants than address the reason why people are in the country without legal status.
We could end all illegal immigration in an instant. But this doesn't let the GOP stoke racial hatred and enact its vision of a police state.
They mean the same thing I was suggesting. Illegal immigration is a symptom of a problem. Immigration is too difficult, but we so heavily rely on immigrant labour that we allow it to continue.
Most undocumented immigrants are here for work. If we change the immigration system to give them work visas, the problem mostly goes away. Some of them don't want to stay here permanently, and not even for the entire year. They come seasonally. Others would like to stay permanently, and offering them a legal path to citizenship is likely a good idea.
I think it's not possible to end all illegal immigration instantly, but the vast majority is easily within our reach.
It's worth noting that asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, and the way the current administration handles the situation itself it what's illegal.
It's not disingenuous. Republicans rally their base against "violent illegal immigrants". They don't rally their base on "fixing immigration issues", but on deporting people, which is effectively the same as running on law and order.
If immigration issues are mostly solved, then republicans lose one of their rallying points.
As someone else pointed out, this is exactly why republicans killed a bill that had support across the aisle. Trump was going to run on mass deportations, and it's hard to do that, when a bill was just passed, co-sponsored by your own party.
> Do you have a proposed solution other than decades worth of court dates? It doesn’t really seem like the other side has a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever.
I think we are at a point where we should accept that there will be decades of court dates. The real alternative is that anyone can be taken away because there would be no process for even a multi-generation born citizen to challenge the arrest. The real deterrent for it happening to such a citizen is reporting and publicity, which is increasingly seeming like it can be thwarted by a population that is primed to strip the humanity of those they disagree with.
The way this is being handled, the timeline where we just let those 10 million stay in the country and avoid similar things in the future seems very appealing indeed. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes.
>just let those 10 million stay in the country and avoid similar things in the future
But this is what I’m getting at, this is not the first time this has happened, it’s been happening with millions of people for generations now. Heck Reagan pardoned millions back in the 1980’s. So how long are we supposed to keep saying “okay you guys can stay but let’s do better in the future”? After so many decades it is obvious that nothing is going to change without some kind of drastic political change, which is basically why Trump was elected.
But just looking at the system from a Birds Eye view: it’s easy in, difficult out. All it takes is one president to not enforce the law and the law is basically moot. Just seems disingenuous the people saying deporting people is horrible yet offering no solutions other than to just let them all stay here forever. We are well past the point where saying we’ll do better in the future is an argument that anyone will accept.
Why is there nobody suggesting a law to expedite or fast track the “due process”? That at least seems like a moderate approach.
No, you are not hearing what I am saying. This particular implementation of deportations puts you and I and anyone else at long-term risk of being deported in a similar manner. It puts legal residents at a more immediate risk of being deported in a similar manner. You can’t fast-track due process; that is the point. If you are not afforded due process for allegations that you are an illegal immigrant before you are shipped away then the damage is done and it doesn’t matter that you can prove you were born here to parents who were born here.
I understand what you’re saying and I can agree with you that the rule of law is important. You are ignoring the fact that the previous admin ignored due process for letting them in in the first place, but that was not my original question. You still have not offered any kind of solution other than letting them all stay forever, and at this point the majority of the electorate is more interested in seeing them all go back than making sure that every single one gets their day in court.
> You can’t fast-track due process
We can make laws and change systems, a serious good faith solution would be to propose changes to the due process to account for this case we keep finding ourselves in where we have 20 million people who need to be processed and a system with no hope of handling them all.
>You are ignoring the fact that the previous admin ignored due process for letting them in in the first place
We thought you were kidding, this isn't a fact, it's the complete opposite of a fact, in otherwords, a lie. Very famously the number of arrests of people cross the border went up while biden was president.
Aside from that ludicrous lie, we have to evaluate the situation where we actually live. If there was a literal magic genie who could cause 10 million people to instantly teleport then maybe we could talk about it, but there isn't, so we don't.
In actual reality land, spending 100 billion dollars in order to arrest and deport millions of people who work and pay taxes and in general support the economy of this country is hilariously stupid. Also evil, lets not forget that.
Every axis you want to try to evaluate this on fails at the most cursory examination. Obviously it's a waste of money because you're spending money to remove tax payers and consumers, so that's a double negative. It's also immoral due to the sheer amount of crimes and human rights violations that have already taken place and will continue to take place.
It's not even particularly effective as some kind of macho statement, deporting your own citizens isn't going to impress anyone.
> We can make laws and change systems, a serious good faith solution would be to propose changes to the due process
No, a serious good faith solution would be to establish an actual working immigration/citizenship system with clear rules and then enforce them, because the current situation endangers everyone.
I'm from a different country. We have ID cards. You strictly need an ID card (or a different proof of citizenship or right to residence) from the age of 18 (or even sooner if you are attending schools, using the health system etc) to do basically anything. It's not possible to live here your whole life as a full member of the society without that. When I read how someone lives 60 years in the US without actual legal basis to do that I just shudder. People should be forced to resolve their legal situation one way or another much sooner. And I am pro-immigration, but also there should be order in that.
Once you have a clear, fast proof of right to reside in a country, you don't need to touch due process because it can go fast.
> I'm from a different country. We have ID cards. You strictly need an ID card (or a different proof of citizenship or right to residence) from the age of 18 (or even sooner if you are attending schools, using the health system etc) to do basically anything.
That's essentially how it is in the states, we have the U.S. passport and individual State's drivers licenses as the primary forms of ID. And government bureaucracy is actually notorious for requiring tons of information (two forms of government ID, and proof of residence, sometimes the literal SS card or birth certificate itself) that everyone inevitability ends up running into an issue with forgetting some document at least once in their lives.
> It's not possible to live here your whole life as a full member of the society without that.
It's not really possible here either, even private companies usually require it in some way or another (such as LinkedIn[0]). The issue is illegal immigrants simply forego these things, or work for companies and live in blue states that don't check any form of ID in the majority of places, on purpose (such as when citizens vote in the presidential election, which is still insane to me)
> Once you have a clear, fast proof of right to reside in a country, you don't need to touch due process because it can go fast.
Well, once you have the undocumented migrants inside your borders, how are you supposed to get rid of them other than how the current administration has been attempting to (utilizing private intelligence and beefing up ICE)?
> And government bureaucracy is actually notorious for requiring tons of information (two forms of government ID, and proof of residence, sometimes the literal SS card or birth certificate itself)
That means it's actually not like in country. Once you have an ID card, you don't need anything else (only very rarely the birth certificate).
> The issue is illegal immigrants simply forego these things
That would in our country mean no phone, no driver's license, no electricity, no bank account, you can't be employed, etc., so really not something anyone could do for a longer time and lead a normal life.
> how are you supposed to get rid of them
Offer them a clear path to legalize their status. Create a system where it's not possible to live a nearly whole life this way. This is clearly a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution, not one that can be created or cancelled on the whim of a president.
> That means it's actually not like in country. Once you have an ID card, you don't need anything else (only very rarely the birth certificate).
We could just increase the amount of places that need a Passport for verification, then.
> That would in our country mean no phone, no driver's license, no electricity, no bank account, you can't be employed, etc., so really not something anyone could do for a longer time and lead a normal life.
I don't know about phone plans or electricity, but you can't get a driver's license without being a citizen in most states (a few blue ones are the exception), and without a social security number you can't open a bank account or get legally employed (employers need your SSN to pay you), but the issue is some employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table, oftentimes in cash and without reporting it to the IRS, because they like the cheaper labor. This is illegal, but oftentimes unenforced.
> Offer them a clear path to legalize their status.
Why should we have to legalize them? We have a path to legal immigration in this country, and they decided not to go through it. Reagan legalized all illegal immigrants in the past, and that turned out horribly, and set an awful precedent.
> Create a system where it's not possible to live a nearly whole life this way.
Why should we have to? We've been around for ~250 years, this hasn't been a big problem the entire time. Clearly, it's possible to fix this without it.
> This is clearly a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution, not one that can be created or cancelled on the whim of a president.
It's not just the Executive, the BBB passed the Senate and House too, and deporting illegal immigrants has large bipartisan support [0] (though not to the extent the current administration is doing it, unfortunately)
You don't have to, of course. But once someone has strong ties to only one country, lives most of their life there, in some cases even is not a citizen of another country, it's the only humane thing to do - in these cases they are de facto citizens already.
> It's not just the Executive
But before the BBB it was, and it was Biden doing one thing and Trump doing another without any laws changing and this is not a stable environment to be in. And it is reasonable to expect some stability from the State.
In the time it took you to make this snide comment on HN, you could have explained your quote which was evidently incomprehensible to all except yourself.
That doesn't look like something made in bad faith to me, given that we're seeing threats of precisely that from the usa president [1]. Unfortunately, it's hard to conclude that you're correct in your personal determination of bad faith, because you haven't explained that quote [0] which was evidently incomprehensible except to yourself.
Are you sure you want to talk about the topic? Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Why not just say what you mean, and we can all have a civil discussion? Everybody wins then, right? Not that I'm forcing you to discuss anything civilly if you're not into it.
That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made:
* "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful)
* "Just let them all stay" (not realistic)
* "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded)
* Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor"
The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop.
> Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so.
Don't gaslight.
I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative".
> We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making
The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.
Ah we're dealing with a comprehension problem. Let me explain then.
The point of "deport people I disagree with" was to highlight it as an illegal solution, much like the "don't give due process" solution.
If we are to take your solution seriously (of simply ignoring our Constitution), then we have all sorts of "solutions" on the table, including ones like "deport people I disagree with." That is to imply that neither of these are actual solutions because both of them would require violating our Constitution.
I suppose I made an error expecting I was speaking to someone with the cognitive firepower required to understand analogies and implicature, so I hope this helps.
Some people start abducting anyone off the streets and it’s called a “solution” so other people who don’t like it need to shut up or offer a better one? Well, we are each entitled to our opinion and I don’t agree with that one.
Anyway, here’s a better solution: let them stay. I can’t see how that would be nearly as bad as this. For me personally, for my neighbors, for the rust belt, indeed for anybody except those wanting to abuse power.
I think this conversation is very clearly people speaking past each other.
Let's reset.
They are asking for a solution that is realistic. Something that is happening right now is, by definition, a realistic outcome. "Let everyone stay" is not a realistic solution for obvious reasons.
> They are asking for a solution that is realistic.
Indeed, they asked for “a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever” and I explicitly said I did not have this. I also see them and you saying “someone” should come up with a solution and, failing to find one yourselves, say deportation without any court hearing is acceptable. I’ve outlined my reasons for why that is dangerous and unacceptable and you just throw up your hands and say it must happen because it’s happening.
(Did you notice how you went from “solution” to “outcome” and then back to “solution”? People are decrying the “outcome” because it’s a shit “solution”. Yes, it seems we are talking past each other.)
> Did you notice how you went from “solution” to “outcome” and then back to “solution”?
Thats perhaps a bad habit of mine, finding synonyms as I dont like to repeat the same word in the next sentence.
> Indeed, they asked for “a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever” and I explicitly said I did not have this. I also see them and you saying “someone” should come up with a solution and, failing to find one yourselves, say deportation without any court hearing is acceptable.
So on the other side "just letting them all stay here forever" is also an unacceptable solution.
So what then? There's no acceptable solution we are just screwed?
If "just letting them all stay here forever" is an unacceptable solution, then "send millions of people who are here legally or illegally to gulags forever" is an even less acceptable one.
The Joe Biden Administration didn't continue the Remain in Mexico policy and brought over people to America who they lost contact with after scheduling a court date.
"Remain in Mexico" isn't a law, and in fact the legality of that original Trump policy is still unsettled (but it probably isn't legal without an act of Congress given its clear incompatibility with the INA). The 9th Circuit shut it down within its jurisdiction before the Biden admin did.
1. What to do with people apprehended entering the country illegally and who then claim asylum.
2. What to do with people already inside the country who are suspected of being here illegally.
The first thing is complicated and badly in need of a rethink because clearly our asylum laws are being gamed. I don't have any ready answers but I'm sure that there are a zillion proposals for reform.
For the second thing, yes I believe that if you are suspected of being in the US illegally then you should absolutely have the right to challenge deportation in court. Otherwise literally anyone can be scooped up off the street and deported with no recourse whether they are an American citizen or not. And honestly it is a bit maddening to see people continuously fail to grasp (or pretend to fail to grasp) this basic point.
They had people being deported while they were on the queue to renew their documents. US American born citizens were deported just because they "looked latinos". Your legal status is pretty much just in the eyes of whoever ICE agent you're gonna meet today.
Much selective quoting on your part, here is the other half of the truth:
> Gavidia was released, but Javier Ramirez, another US citizen who is Gadivia’s friend and coworker, was detained by two agents, forced facedown on the ground and taken to federal detention, where he has remained in custody, the New York Times reported.
Arrested and eventually released is guilty until proven innocent.
Actually, that's NOT the deal in most Western democracies. In countries with free speech protections, writing an op-ed as a legal resident is following the rules, not breaking them.
Yes, even Western democracies sometimes fail at this - through mistakes, bad laws, or moments of fear. That's precisely why we need to call it out when it happens, not shrug and normalize it.
Rights are inherent to all people. When any government - Western or otherwise - punishes peaceful political expression, they're violating fundamental human rights.
'That's just how it is' is how rights erode. We should aspire to strengthen protections for everyone, not excuse their violation by pointing to other failures.
So.. America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country? If I went to Mexico and started protesting I would fully expect Mexico to send me home. And I'd support their right to do so.
This comparison actually undermines the argument. Mexico's constitution allows non-citizens to participate in peaceful protests generally - it only restricts participation in 'political affairs of the country' specifically (Article 9)[1]. So even Mexico, with significantly weaker democratic institutions, is more permissive than the scenario being described. Canada, meanwhile, guarantees peaceful assembly for everyone (Charter Section 2(c))[2]. The premise that other democracies would automatically deport protesters simply doesn't hold up.
You don't get to decide what constitutes "American interests." We all do, and our current consensus is encoded in the First Amendment which states plainly that the government cannot take action against people (not constrained to US citizens*) on the basis of their speech.
You can change the Constitution if you don't like it!
ICE is already brutally arresting vacationers in the US on valid tourist visas, accusing them of being "illegals" simply for being brown. This is why no one from the rest of the world wants to vacation, work, or live in America anymore.
> ICE is already brutally arresting vacationers in the US on valid tourist visas, accusing them of being "illegals" simply for being brown.
Can you back that up with evidence? Just because someone claims that they were denied entry / detained / deported due to skin color doesn't mean that was the case. Many such cases where media has jumped on to claims that turned out to be false.
> This is why no one from the rest of the world wants to vacation, work, or live in America anymore.
Absolutely false, only those who let them be manipulated by scare media think there is actually a measurable risk for coming to the US legally.
> So.. America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country?
Free speech is (was?) an American interest. Further, the country contains multitudes of different, opposing interests, not just those of the current regime.
For all its grandstanding over “cancel culture” this regime’s unusually thin skin when it comes to opposing views would be laughable, were it not so dangerous and abusive.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense when you apply it.
If a legal immigrant in the US starts recruiting for ISIS (entirely legal behavior), don’t you want the ability to remove them? Generally countries don’t want immigrants who support people who want that countries destruction.
Providing material support is, which is a gray area when it comes to recruitment as recruitment doesn't have to be explicit.
What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions? What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?
None of those things are illegal.
Shouldn't the US government, well any government for that matter, be able to deny such people entry?
As they say "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". It wasn't intended to be a mechanism by which foreigners can destroy the country itself.
> Providing material support is, which is a gray area when it comes to recruitment
It’s absolutely not a grey area, what source do you have that’s claiming this?
> What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions?
That’s fine. That’s speech. Terrorist or freedom fighter is like mandatory freshman dorm banter.
> What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?
If it links to a listed group you’re fucked. Even if you didn’t know about the connection.
Grey areas resolve differently depending on context. When it comes to terrorism, we tend to be fine being more brutal. Debating Hamas is fine. Waving their flag is questionable, potentially fair grounds to deny visa entry (or at least do a very deep dive into whether actual support occurred). Encouraging folks to join Hamas, directly or indirectly, should result in immediate detention and incapacitation.
> America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country?
America shouldn’t be sending masked goons into courthouses to disappear people.
I was actually supportive of Trump’s illegal immigrant pitch at the get go. But then he totally ignored the gangs, going after tax-paying migrants because Miller found them easier to round up. And then he started deporting Americans.
This isn’t even a problem of evil. It’s one of incompetence. We have a bunch of nutwads in masks wearing camo doing whatever they can to hit numbers. This is bureaucratic failure on steroids.
> I'd support their right to do so
Honestly, I’m fine with this. I am also fine with someone publishing this app. (We frankly need a database of ICE agents who have broken the law so they can be dealt with down the road.)
> Three young children who are US citizens - including one with cancer - were deported to Honduras alongside their mothers last week, according to advocacy groups and the families' lawyers.
> One of the children is a four-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was sent without medication, a lawyer for the child's family said. [0]
Lots of evidence showing the hard police work of pursuing gangs is being substituted for the easier task of deporting tax-paying migrants. I don’t have any particular issue with the latter. But it’s incorrect to claim this administration is pursuing gangs; its deals with Bukele have essentially freed multiple members of MS13’s leadership.
> Deporting people who are in the country illegally is very much in line with the constitution
You’re correct. But in a somewhat irrelevant way. The problem for most Americans aren’t the deportations. It’s the lack of due process, extrajudicial torture, and expansion of these police privileges to now encompassing all naturalised Americans.
it's unlikely the original SS databased had any information about this.
The new one they're building is clearly going to have all this bullshit so they can cherry pick at lightning speed reasons to exile, rendition or punish people.
But just so we're clear, the SS doesn't really care if you're a citizen. All it's tracking is who pays into it and who receives the benefits from the payments.
Yeah, I don't think the US actually has a reliable nationality status database other than those it's issued passports to. This may make the situation worse rather than better for those affected.
>Deporting people who are in the country illegally
Oh? What about people who are permanent residents and are arbitrarily deemed "threat to national security" because of their opposition to Israel? What about the recent denaturalization DOJ unit that was just set up? Are those people "illegally" here too and that is constitutionally valid?
The tunnel vision here is astounding. Do you really not realize that this administration isn't stopping at "just the illegals?" They have deported US citizens, children at that.
The HN voting record shows that HN broadly agrees with GGP (your GP). It makes sense, since people here are big tech developers, who will never come into contact in police in this kind of way.
What about sending people who are here legally to a foreign torture camp (not "deporting", by the way) without due process? Is that in line with the Constitution?
What about ignoring due process while doing so? Is that, in your view, in line with the constitution? If it is, what recourse does a US citizen detained by ICE (either accidentally or not) have? Also, how do you view Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order? Birthright citizenship is in the 14th Amendment. If the president is allowed to arbitrarily redefine who is and is not a citizen, are constitutional protections anything more than ink on paper?
As if that's the extent of things. As if the worst abuses of the Trump administration are just deporting people who were here illegally.
Don't worry about the mass revocations of legal status of previously legal residents. The deprivation of due process. The sending of people to a foreign prison where they endure all kinds of human rights abuses based on flimsy evidence, no due proceas and no expectations of ever getting out alive.
Only if you knew by virtue of something like access to secret information (the things you'd have a security clearance to access).
If you see the police are gathered around your local 7-Eleven, you're absolutely free to post it.
If you know in advance that the police are going to be performing a raid on a meth house and you got that information by virtue of a security clearance (I assume they do have something of this sort like federal employees have, though I'm not sure the precise mechanisms) then you'd be violating the policies around that access. This could be illegal (just like a fed leaking secret or top secret information).
If you know in advance because the police have loose lips, but you are not personally under any kind of confidentiality policy, you're free to post it. So the loose lipped cops at the bars I used to frequent could have caused real problems for themselves.
Worth pointing out that the question of legality is besides the point if you are purposefully antagonizing the police state.
It’s not about legality. It’s about compliance.
If you become a target, they will arrest you and drop charges later. They will make you miss work and lose your job. They will set up surveillance on you to catch you doing anything else they want to continue harassment.
You don’t have to look hard to see reporting of officers using official databases to settle personal scores. 404 media just did a big expose on ALPR Flock DB abuses
Honestly, they'll put you in an ICE detention facility indefinitely. They don't have to drop charges if they don't even have to charge you in the first place, and because they're all hiding behind masks there's no way for them to face any kind of repercussions.
Beyond that, Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of sending "homegrowns" to overseas concentration camps, so it won't be long now before you don't have to do anything wrong to be targetted and you don't have any recourse regardless.
Flashing your headlights to warn others of cops or anything else is generally considered free speech. IIRC, this has been ruled on several times in pretty high courts.
So double check with a lawyer, but I'm like 99% confident there's nothing illegal about these types of Apps. I mean Waze has been doing it for years and even Google maps notifies you about speed traps.
If some new ruling makes it not free speech, we're in danger
In the UK during the early era of cars, the Automobile Association used to send boys out with bicycles to warn drivers about speed traps. This was challenged in court, obstruction of justice or some such, so the AA simply inverted the scheme. The boys were now told to always salute cars to signal that everything was okay, but wouldn't salute if there was a speed trap ahead. It was reasoned that the law couldn't compel the boys to salute. Apparently they kept this up for a few decades, before eventually deciding that speed limits were generally reasonable.
If you drive around in EU then be aware that the law is different depending on the country. Schweiz for example do not allow to use or sell databases that has the location of speed cameras. In Germany you are not allowed to use apps that warn you of it. You are also not allowed to use your car lights to warn other drivers, but you can use hand signals. They are however allowed in other places like Belgium, Neitherlands and Spain.
As someone that lives and works on the DACH region, you just have to listen to German and Swiss radios, they do tend to point out radar spots, regardless of those laws, so dunno how they get their permissions to do so.
I use OsmAnd and it alerts me to pedestrian crosswalks. My wife uses google and it alerts her to speed enforcement. Interesting difference in priorities.
What are the benefits of crosswalks alerts? Usually, there are lots of signs leading to, and at the crosswalks. This is the opposite for fixed and mobile speed traps, they'd rather it be a surprise to drivers.
The benifit is adding another layer of safety to reduce risk. In the swiss cheese model of accidents, each safety measure is a layer of swiss cheese, which has holes through which accidents may go through. But if you stack up a lot of cheese, the accident has to thread a path through several different holes and that is less likely to happen.
Idk about danger. There are countries with better functioning democracy and personal freedom than US that make it illegal to use an app that warns about speed traps. For example Switzerland.
In multiple other countries you also can't flash your headlights to warn about police presence on the road.
You can have a reasonable system one way or another. I would take Swiss regulation over US one any day personally.
Flashing headlights gets people to drive more carefully and within the speed limit, thus you are not helping someone commit a crime. However if you help someone avoid being lawfully detained this might make you complicit in their actions and the courts could very well decide differently. Intent very much matters here.
Using this line of reasoning, let’s imagine for a moment that a car speeding 20mph over the limit sees someone on the other side of the road flashing their lights and slows down in time to avoid a ticket.
Hasn’t the light flasher helped someone who was breaking the law avoid detection?
And isn’t the intent of the flasher to ensure that people who were breaking the law have enough time to stop doing that long enough to avoid detection?
> However if you help someone avoid being lawfully detained
Obligatory “I am not a lawyer” disclaimer, but the people who make posts on this app have no contact with the people the app ostensibly benefits. If the app helped targets of ice find willing drivers in the area to help them escape to somewhere else, that’d be one thing since there is now a direct relationship with a person and the accused and direct action on the part of the app user. But I don’t see how this app is materially different from posting speed traps or DUI checkpoints on Waze, an action that has absolutely helped people avoid lawful intervention by police.
The light flasher has merely persuaded someone to stop breaking the law. Whether or not the lights flashed, the police would not have been able to detect prior speeding, but merely detected speeding near them.
An analogy might be to have a sign in a shop warning thieves of CCTV - the purpose is to prevent theft and is not considered to be helping someone avoid detection, although it does also do that.
We’re saying that “intent very much matters here” but when we are talking about people flashing headlights to warn others of a police-manned speed trap, we focus on the effects of the action. Isn’t the intention of the person flashing their headlights (in many cases) to help people break the law? That is, people see the signal and slow down while passing the speed trap only to increase speed once past, evading detection.
This looks much the same to me as people warning those around them of ICE activity.
Nobody flashes their headlights with the intent that someone will speed up. Driving at night, you're not even able to determine whether oncoming traffic is speeding.
It is literally telling someone to obey the law, because the law is watching.
If you have the app, you likely don't need the reminder. You're either evading ICE or helping other people steer clear of ICE.
Police notifications on GPS don't really give you much notification to turn off onto a different road or to avoid them, at least on freeways, which is the only time I've seen them.
Fondly remember 20 years ago when I was doing over 100 on a highway in northern Alaska and all the _cop_ did was flash his lights at me to tell me to slow down.
In Pennsylvania the court ruled that flashing your lights to signal isn’t illegal but it is dangerous at night. So presumably it’s fine during the day, or perhaps one could signal by turning headlights off and on instead.
There is a risk to DUI checkpoints and speeding checkpoints even if you are doing neither. Innocent people die at the hands of the police fairly often, but many more are wrongfully imprisoned. Wanting to limit your interactions with the police is a valid safety and risk management proposal.
If safety was the real goal the police themselves would announce checkpoints and speed traps. This gives people a chance to not drink too much or speed in the first place. I've lived in places where DUI checkpoints were all announced ahead of time, and I think for many it was a serious reminder to not drink and drive.
But for many DUI checkpoints safety is not the goal. It's simply a pretext to check everyone's papers.
That only works if you actually have a DUI checkpoints all the time everywhere. It is a random check because then people need to be careful all the time. If there is a DUI checkpoint 2 times per year in your area you can just avoid driving drunk at those two days per year.
They do. DUI checkpoints are heavily advertised here in California for exactly that reason — to deter drunk drivers. The only thing they don't do is tell the exact intersection so drunks don't just drink and drive the other direction.
What about people that are on their way to work (or somewhere else time sensitive) who want to be aware of places with a slowdown because of checkpoints?
1. I didn't say people can't have another opinion. I didn't say that because I don't believe it and never implied otherwise.
2. Supposing I did believe it and did say it, I would be well within my rights to say it. The First Ammendment assures the right to say things like that, no matter how dumb and misguided those things are.
Doctors and teachers handle that, since they have regular contract with children. At least in my state they're required by law to report suspected child abuse.
As a side note, these laws are doing damage to organizations looking for volunteers that I don't think we have fully grasped yet.
People are willing to put a couple of weekends into making a middle school or high school competition happen. They're a lot less willing to do it if they have to go to an FBI station to get fingerprinted or produce a state and federal background check first. And I'm not talking about people with something to hide; I'm talking about people with a completely clean background who just don't want to be bothered.
NZ OP here. Few weeks ago there was a morning checkpoint to inspect everyone's child car seat installation.
Few years back got chased by a cop and ticketed (and scolded) for not restraining kiddo (small town and my clever 2yo somehow learned how to unbuckle themselves (even that houdini clip didn't help)). Warned I could get prosecuted for child neglect if I continue. I suspect the daycare has tipped him off.
Making slippery slope arguments like this is not discussing in good faith. I was providing the context of someone who lives in that geo-political area.
And check that every single one of your federal papers are present and punctual. We'd hate to have someone that's unbecoming to share a full disclosure of themselves to officers on the road.
This is a perfect example of the problem with media reporting bullshit and then later correcting it. Everyone hears the bullshit, very few people hear the actual reason.
Sadly, if that were actually true that would be even f*** worse.
Oh we're not going to let tourists into our country because we asked them whether or not they'd ever smoked pot and they said yes.
We have no idea whether that's actually true or not, but if it is, that's the dumbest thing I've ever f*** heard, especially given the marijuana's legal in most states in the United States that anyone outside the US would actually want to visit
> “Verbally they said it was because of extremist propaganda and narcotic paraphernalia," with "extremist propaganda" referring to the alleged meme
With the “narcotic paraphernalia” referring to “a photo of the traveler with a homemade wooden pipe” according to Mikkelson.
The official document for his rejection stated this reason:
> it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation
With all these conflicting accounts in mind, perhaps it is plausible that he was denied entry because of his admitted legal cannabis use on two prior occasions. Or perhaps Homeland Security indeed retaliated against a someone for possessing a JD Vance meme, then decided to lie about it.
It's not legal federally. Not that I agree with giving him shit about it, but the federal government basically considers it the same thing as fentanyl. Don't admit it on any federal application.
So you're saying 2 previous presidents were more successful without using a campaign of threats and violence? And they didn't have to ignore court orders either? Makes you wonder...
Yea, that is worth looking in to. It could be that individual ICE agents are just not doing their job in order to sandbag the president. Or it could be that far, far fewer illegal immigrants crossed the border <https://x.com/RealTomHoman/status/1940156659084796257> during Trump’s terms than Biden’s or Obama’s; it’s currently about 60× lower than the average during Biden’s term. There’s also the million people who signed up to self–deport in order to avoid being arrested by ICE. Perhaps the removal numbers will rise as they actually leave.
But have any of Trump’s executive orders told ICE to be more violent? I haven’t noticed any that said that, but maybe you could link to it.
"But it could be this, or it could be that." Just look at the facts without trying to reframe everything. Your comments come across as deceitful.
Listen to the words of this President, and the people in his administration compared to previous Presidents. Not to mention deploying the national guard and USMC against civilians to assist ICE, because ICE's methods have changed.
Then ask yourself why does ICE need a budget of $75 billion in the bill Trump is pushing, when ICE was apparently more successful with magnitudes less in previous administrations?
You might want to link to a specific bill, because I don’t know for sure what you’re referring to otherwise. Do you mean the recent budget bill? There's no way I’m reading that for an internet comment, but if that’s the one you mean then I’ll quote a news article about it:
> The GOP bill allocates $46.5 billion toward completing Trump's border wall. It also puts $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities and $10 billion to be used for border security more broadly. The bill sets aside $4.1 billion to hire and retain more agents and officers, and invests in upgraded technology for screenings and surveillance of U.S. borders.
It doesn’t say anything about ICE specifically, so it’s not very helpful. ICE wouldn't be doing construction, and they wouldn’t be running CBP facilities, but maybe they’ll be getting more agents or officers or both. They also don’t screen travelers or surveil the border. Overall it doesn’t sound like ICE is getting $75 billion.
Anyway, the budget is not very relevant to my question. If removals are down to a third (well, two fifths I guess) of what they were during Biden’s term, how is it that we are suddenly in a police state? If ICE makes us a police state, then weren’t we in a police state then?
No, these are very clearly confounding factors. When there are fewer people walking across the deserts, for example, then there are both fewer deaths from exposure and fewer people to put on a bus and immediately return to Mexico. That makes ICE’s numbers go down. Pointing out confounding factors is not an attempt to reframe the issue; deliberately ignoring confounding factors is actually one of the easiest ways to lie with statistics.
Do you honestly think (being mean to perps at their place of work, church, or while voluntarily attending a court case) needs to be written down? %waving hands at everything% This is the hill you want to (literally or figuratively) die on?
The comment you responded to with this asked a completely legitimate question and even looked up the hard numbers to back up their doubts, only to be flagged. The bratty man-children on this site who flag such comments because "me no like" truly should learn a thing or two about reasoning like a thinking adult.
Nope, it was a legitimate question that does touch upon a number of debatable subjects about narrative, media focus, definitions of deportations and so forth. Either way, flagging comments into literal non-existence just so you can completely shut down whatever opinion you don't want to read is simply childish, and fundamentally moronic.
Because border security is extremely expensive. The point isn't just removals, it's also deterrence & denial of entry (of people and contraband) in the first place.
The security worry isn't extra laborers driving down wages, it's terrorists coming across the border and blowing up Mardi Gras (secondarily, serial rapists or murderers or what have you coming here to ply their trade). Prevention of entry is the only defense there, because presumably those bad actors aren't here for the long haul, economic gain, etc.
I haven't seen a budget breakdown so I can't speak to how defensible the budget is, just that it seems clear that removal metrics don't tell a useful story on their own.
You're essentially peddling the poisoned M&M fallacy. Do we need capable, rational border security? Yes. Do we need unaccountable masked men armed in our city streets, forcefully detaining anyone who looks like they might be [insert bogeyman caricature]? Absolutely fucking not.
When did I defend authoritarian masked men? Perimeter defense is an expensive endeavor, and if you read the words I wrote that's clearly what I was talking about. At first glance, the new budget includes over 50 billion (!) dollars for increasing our perimeter defense. That sounds like capable, rational border security to me.
Please stop accusing people of peddling the straw man you want to tear down. It's Reddit-tier, not worthy of HN.
Then why are they spending so much effort deporting everyday people? This talking point is tired, it's the equivalent of "for the children!". Something that everyone can get behind but isn't anywhere near the level of problem it's made out to be.
Parent is clearly not interested in that kind of statistic. Instead their framing implies that even 1 terrorist/rapist/murderer/etc that makes it across the border is a problem worth solving via authoritarianism. The only successful response is to draw this out and make it clearer for everyone else.
It's right there in your framing. The most charitable take available is that you're approaching the problem like a software engineer, and accepting that framing as defensible. It is not. One of the most important facts to remember at the level of government is that while we must abstract human problems in order to solve for them, humans themselves are not abstractions. When perfect becomes the enemy of the good (enough), human suffering increases.
All that aside, feel free to walk your framing back and I'll change mine accordingly.
No, that’s simply incorrect. ICE is following exactly the same process that has been in place since 1996. It can’t be due process under Biden but then suddenly unconstitutional under Trump.
ICE is not “kidnapping” anybody, and is not “trafficking” them. They are federal police officers who arrest criminals and deport them according the legal process defined by Congress in 1996.
I didn't realize Biden was instructing ICE to grab people off the street and deport them to a gulag in a country they aren't from before they can have a hearing or make any appeals. Would you please provide references for this?
I think the key difference is the usage of face masks and plainclothes - as far as I can tell, from various different news articles - ICE agents weren't concealing their identities en masse using face masks under Biden and Obama.
Based on historical examples of secret police, plainclothes and face masks on Federal Agents by default could definitely make people think that we are "approaching a police state".
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It’s an objective fact that ICE was removing almost 3× as many people per month this time last year, but that nobody cared at the time. If it’s all about perceptions rather than the objective reality then that makes some sense.
All the president has to do is to make a few speeches about how tough on illegal immigration his administration is going to be and people’s perceptions will shift enough that they suddenly care. Now that someone cares enough to start making threats against federal officers, the officers start wearing masks and bullet–proof vests. This apparently causes perceptions to shift even more and people start thinking we live in a police state.
But the reality is that they’re doing ⅓rd of the work. They’re literally arresting fewer people. If anything, that makes it _less_ of a police state than before. And the law that ICE is upholding was passed last amended in by Congress in 1996, so it’s not like Trump has suddenly given them a new job to do.
So yea, I would say that it’s a misperception. The perception doesn't appear to agree with the objective facts.
I should probably have said “removed” rather than “arrested”, since not every person removed gets arrested. I am using the DHS’s own statistics <https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2022/table3...> which cover every year from 1892 to 2022. For Biden’s term and Trump’s current term I used estimates found in news reports though I don’t have the links in front of me. The estimate for Trump’s current term was just for the first four months of the year.
I get what you are saying, honestly, I too wonder why if so many deportations occurred under both obama and biden, why didn't anyone seem to care? Why weren't judges trying to block that from happening?
But then I remember that trump is invoking the ancient "war powers act" to do them. Why didn't obama or biden have to do that if they were able to deport so many people? I also remember when that psycho dog-killing-enjoyer kristi noem tweeted "suck it" when a group of people who were trying to use legal means to not get deported got deported. Fuck her.
You say it's a misperception, but I think we are all perceiving it exactly as they want us to. They are going to do whatever they can get away with by any means necessary and fuck you if you try to get in the way. Some people just think that's bad.
You might have confused two different things. There's been a bit of a fight over whether the President can intervene in Iran and Yemen recently, since Congress hasn’t declared a war. But that has nothing to do with immigration.
> psycho dog-killing-enjoyer kristi noem
If you want anyone to take you seriously then don’t call people names. State your claim without ad hominem attacks or other obvious fallacies.
> I get what you are saying, honestly, I too wonder why if so many deportations occurred under both obama and biden, why didn't anyone seem to care? Why weren't judges trying to block that from happening?
Because the Obama and Biden administrations were not going out of their way (which the Trump administration both is and is publicly flaunting that it is) to avoid providing due process under the terms of existing case law, defying "you must not deport person A to country X" orders of courts.
> But then I remember that trump is invoking the ancient "war powers act" to do them.
"Alien Enemies Act", the War Powers Act is much newer and unrelated, but not all of the controversial deportations are attached to that.
> Why didn't obama or biden have to do that if they were able to deport so many people?
The Alien Enemies Act provides a pretext for deportations with less process than traditional deportation process under regular immigration law (in fact, until the courts ruled otherwise, the Trump Administration was claiming, and treating it as if, it allowed no process at all once the act was invoked and the executive branch designated the target as an alien enemy.)
Right, the “Alien Enemies Act”. Trump used that to target members of a specific gang, not every single illegal alien from every country. So a few dozen or a hundred people, not 35k people per month. If people conflate the two and think that every single illegal alien has been declared an “Enemy Alien” according to that act then that could explain why nobody cared last year. But if that’s true then it is also another case of a gross misperception of reality on the part of the people who suddenly care enough to protest and/or send death threats to federal officers.
> Right, the “Alien Enemies Act”. Trump used that to target members of a specific gang
There is virtually no evidence for many of the people targeted that they were members of that or any other gang, and the standarss used for that designation were laughable.
Had the courts not quickly shut down the Administration contention that expulsions under the act were not subject to challenge, it obviously would have been used much more extensively as a way to sweep up anyone the Administration wishes to deport.
While that is a valid complaint, don’t move the goalposts. The original comment was:
> But then I remember that trump is invoking the ancient "war powers act" to do them. Why didn't obama or biden have to do that if they were able to deport so many people?
In other words, this guy thinks that Trump is using this act to boost the number of deportations. But the gang doesn’t have enough members to make a dent in the statistics. 35k illegals are being removed from the country every month and no gang has 35k members, or even 3k. They might have three dozen.
And I’ll reiterate that if lots of people are angry at Trump because they think that he’s using some ancient obscure law against _every_ illegal immigrant then they are suffering a misperception of what has actually been going on. If this is the reason for the sudden protests against ICE then it is a very bad reason indeed.
I don’t disagree with the characterization of ICE officers as racist thugs, but retaliatory violence is (1) still immoral and (2) self-defeating.
You aren’t realistically going to overpower them, so any violent resistance just helps them DARVO harder and excuse escalating their brutality. That’s why they’re always so eager to find or create violent one-offs within non-violent mass protests.
As the source article covers, the Trump regime believes that merely reporting the location of an ICE officer constitutes violence against them. I don't think it's a good idea to punch your local ICE officer, and if anyone's considering it I would definitely advise them not to, but issuing a blanket condemnation of hypothetical violence is just terribly naive at this point. I'm extremely confident that, at some point before 2028, someone is going to end up in federal custody for shooting masked home invaders they had no way to know were ICE.
Deportation is a kind of draft, in that deportees are treated similarly to draft dodgers. ICE aren’t MPs, but in this analogy, they largely are folks who have already been drafted themselves, and who have reported for duty.
A bad day at work is just more contact with the “enemy” and is desired by some to separate the weekend warriors from the true believers. The fog of war is obscuring the reality of the outbreak of conflict which has been brewing under the surface for many years.
The revolution will not be televised because it won’t look like a revolution. It’ll look like C-SPAN. Whatever ICE is doing isn’t a revolution, it’s administrative. People voted for this, and they got it. If people want change, make it happen the way that other changes happen that stick. The lesson of Arab Spring is that even with the military on your side, revolution breaks the status quo, and once broken, norms change because the power structure has changed. Most folks don’t want revolution, they just want a vacation from reality. No one wants to put in the work to make revolutions happen because it’s a lot of paperwork, rehearsals, and standing around. It feels like work because it is. All that effort makes it look natural and inevitable, but that’s the magic of make believe.
A bad day at work as you suggest would be a magic act, but who’s gonna put in the work to pull that rabbit out of that hat? And who benefits from such an obvious misdirection?
I was at Occupy San Francisco, so I am not just asking questions, but asking you to re-examine what you believe is possible, and why you think a mock pitched battle with tin soldiers has tactical value, so I don’t know what your motive is, but I doubt you would be honest about your motives given the circumstances.
> >I don’t disagree with the characterization of ICE officers as racist thugs
> 50% of Border Patrol agents are Latino.
Even if that was true, and relevant to their capacity to be racist thugs, Border Patrol is a unit of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—and CBP is a different entity from ICE, at the same organizational level within the Department of Homeland Security—so it would still be a non-sequitur.
>Border Patrol is a unit of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—and CBP is a different entity from ICE, at the same organizational level within the Department of Homeland Security—so it would still be a non-sequitur.
Not at all, 30% of ICE agents are Latino, and we were told Border Patrol and ICE are White redneck neo-Nazi racist thugs. Surprise, that delusion is objectively false given these figures. QED.
Are you suggesting all racists are White rednecks? Racist systems are capable of absorbing contributions from all kinds of people. Whiteness has repeatedly expanded over time.
Please follow your convictions so you can be removed from the internet and placed in jail for a decade or two once you are processed through the legal system and found guilty of assaulting a police officer. The internet will be better off without your calls to violence.
Violence does solve things, but also can make for an immediate 'Very Bad Time'.
Police use violence. Military uses violence. Difference is state-monopoly or not. To say violence doesn't work would be to say the police and military don't work - and they do.
Anybody calling on violent means should absolutely call upon peaceful means first, secondly, and more. Violence should only be after all peaceful means have been tried.
Its better to win by peaceful means, than by exertion of violence. And, violence is no guarantee of winning. And even if you do win, can still be pyrric, in which everyone loses.
Tl; dr. Be wary of people casually calling for violence. They're either a state actor, dumb, or both.
They are officers and they are racist mercenaries.
This is not a new force, they have no new powers. They didn't need to hire new people willing to perform these actions nor train them how to do so.
If you haven't considered this before it should hit you like a hammer to the forehead: where are the resignations? Where are the "good cops" we keep hearing about, what are they doing?
The other federal, state, and local law enforcement officers that are assisting in these actions, where is their principled refusal to violate their oath to uphold the constitution? What statements are their powerful and normally very vocal unions making about all this?
Their "powerful and normally very vocal unions" are saying /nothing/, because the union's overall goal (by their messaging and their members messaging) is to increase and sustain additional hourly pay and increase the wages for said pay.
There is no effective system of checks and balances, or this entire discussion would be moot. Civilian solutions(like ICEBlock and friends) are a whimper of a response compared to the lethal and aggressive actions of these LEOs. Typically entrenched groups(like LEOs) can not be talked or reasoned with into changing their position. Those changes in position come from leverage (ie, your supervisor is replaced or leveraged with the threat of replacement), or direct aggression.
As an example, certain villains took issue with these systems and mounted their own lethal response. We are /still/ talking about these individuals because of how riotously effective their actions were at illuminating and mitigating the perceived problems. Whether your talking about Ted K, or Timmy M....they are examples of people who took action to correct a perceived problem. Right or wrong, every reader of this post knows who they are, what they did, and why they did it. Until something of equal magnitude opposes the authoritarian problem of the day(ie ICE), the status quo will continue.
There are no resignations because they signed up to enforce the law and that's what they are doing now. That you have slurped up propaganda painting that as racists doesn't make it so.
Inciting violence can be protected by the First Ammendment if it isn't inciting imminent illegal action. His post is probably protected. If he were pointing at a guy and saying "We should lynch that ICE agent right now!", that wouldn't be protected speech.
FWIW, I don't even remotely agree with what he's saying.
This is true but HN does not claim to be a free speech site and instead is focused on interesting discussion. There are many things that are legally protected speech that will get you reprimanded or outright banned here.
My wife was just naturalized as a US Citizen a year ago. You can bet she doesn't want to be anywhere near that mess. Her legal status provides her basically no protection from any ICE rookie with a chip on his shoulder.
This is not an example of the scenario esseph described. Foreign students are by definition not US citizens and thus don't have any inherent right to be in the country.
Now Google for keywords Trump + denaturalization, filtering for results in the last 2 weeks. Or what he said about "deporting" citizens by birth since before then.
Aside: limiting the conversation to things that have already happened is uninteresting to me; you skate where the puck is going. One can easily do this by applying the administrations internal logic, i.e. what they said/did in the past, and what the ultimate goal/result was, and mapping that to what they are doing now to extrapolate future outcomes.
The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
They're just going to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades, that's all they're stating. TPM is a far-left propaganda outlet, not surprising to find some histrionic takes on made up scenarios there to rile up the base.
This is not a valid argument because there is no way to disprove it. If you was so easy to find an example that actually holds up under scrutiny you would be able to present one yourself.
>just a response to someone saying something "sounds like" something.
It was a response asking for sources, sources you still don't have. You're projecting about being triggered and still don't have sources to bring. Sad.
>Sounds like you and they are equally competent at finding sources.
Sounds like you're failing at basic reading comprehension, which isn't surprising. I am not the one who made the claim, I do not have to supply sources.
>It's not hard if you try.
Trying doesn't make a difference: the sources don't exist.
>I don't need to enable anyone's laziness.
You have too much laziness of your own, I get it. You're also insanely triggered by my basic asks (since they are heretical apparently) which similarly doesn't surprise me. Any reply from you is an admission that you're triggered and don't have any sources.
>It's pretty sad that you decided to come back to this a week later
Not at all, I have a real life and don't log in every day and furiously click refresh and go through all the comment threads unlike you because you're so triggered.
>and it's also telling that the majority of your comment is just things I wrote.
Modern day Sherlock you are.
>Guess we're done now that you've decided you win though. "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"
No, some of us just have apps that let us know when someone replies.
Whether you were logged in or not, the decision to reply to this thread after a week was the sad bit. But I'm here for you to let off whatever steam you need.
I can admit defeat more if that will help you? Or should I try to give you an opportunity to say "triggering intensifies"? Or something else? Just let me know what will let you feel better.
I'm glad you're getting so much out of this. Would you like me to use a "can I" again as a rhetorical device so you can reply "No you may not" again? I promise I'll be devastated.
Her legal status is that she's a US citizen, she has the same "protection from any ICE rookie" as anyone else who is a US citizen naturalized or natural-born.
The president of the United States is literally fighting in court to get the authority to treat natural born newborns as aliens even though the plain letter of the United States Constitution says these babies are citizens.
In an environment like that, legal status doesn't mean shit.
Well, it does say that explicitly. Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green. If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
>Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green.
They're arguing that the sky is blue, which the sky actually is.
>If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.
If they win a court case by arguing the sky is blue, and half of the political establishment rejects that, that says something about that half of the political establishment, not about the reality.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The argument is that certain overseas territories, foreign dignitaries, and illegal immigrants are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The first two are not offered birthright citizenship, the latter is. If consistency is to be considered, illegal aliens should similarly not be offered birthright citizenship.
What people care about is reality. Currently the reality is you can be subject to arbitrary detention and deportation with no due process, regardless of you rights.
This is a very disingenuous question for a number of reasons.
- Whether unlawful presence is a civil or criminal law, countries should control who enters the country.
- Masked police seem like a reasonable response to doxxing of police officers? It’s not like the identity of these police aren’t know to the legal system and lawyers of the accused.
- Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense. It’s just meaningless rhetoric as detention bears no resemblance to actual concentration camps.
- Most importantly, the US enforcing its own immigrations laws does not make it an outlier - it was an outlier when it ignored its own immigration laws. Every other country I’ve visited rather strictly enforces its immigration laws including speedy deportation of any encountered who doesn’t have permission to be in the country. If anything the headlines should be “US joins rest of world in enforcing its own immigration laws”
> Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense.
I don’t think you are paying attention to the abject cruelty in the administration’s own discourse about these facilities. The U.S. president describing with barely restrained delight his anticipation that escapees from the new facility in Florida would be eaten by alligators. I suppose if called out on it, he’d claim it’s a joke. I’m sure many regimes in history had their own euphemistic terms for facilities such as this; but purposeful cruelty is a cardinal feature of concentration camps in my view.
> The U.S. president describing with barely restrained delight his anticipation that escapees from the new facility in Florida would be eaten by alligators
Do you have a specific quote you can share? I haven't seen what you're referring to.
And I guess I think back to facilities like Alcatraz. It was created such that anyone trying to escape would likely drown. Is that the same thing you're talking about?
I don’t see “barely contained glee at immigrants being eaten by alligators”, I see an attempt at making a funny comment about escaping alligators by not running in a straight line.
> - Whether unlawful presence is a civil or criminal law, countries should control who enters the country.
Yes. And it's disingenuous to call for brutal police tactics with enormous collateral damage for something the letter of the law regards as the equivalent of a parking ticket.
> - Masked police seem like a reasonable response to doxxing of police officers?
Fuck. No.
> Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense.
When they are meant for detaining people who are literally not guilty of any crime, and they are deliberately designed to feature inhumane conditions, it makes every sense.
> - - Most importantly, the US enforcing its own immigrations laws does not make it an outlier
I'll ask the same question again: which civil offenses do you think should also be addressed with secret police and concentration camps?
The EU is stricter with immigration than the US. But it does not use secret police and concentration camps.
You're not really arguing in good faith when your response is "Fuck. No."
> The EU is stricter with immigration than the US. But it does not use secret police and concentration camps.
You don't think the police in Europe sometimes hide the identity of their police from onlookers when required? I'm pretty sure they do.
Do you also think Europe doesn't detain people who are in their country illegally? I'm pretty sure they do. They are even creating "return hubs", which are basically detention centers outside their own country which hold immigrants until they can be returned to their home or a third country.
> You're not really arguing in good faith when your response is "Fuck. No."
If you don't already know that keeping the name & badge number visible is the most important part of proper policing, and established as such by the world's first police force and its founder, Robert Peel, there's no point arguing much of anything with you.
It's literally the difference between a police force and a Geheime Staat Polizei.
"In particular, criminal police officers also work in "civilian" clothing and therefore are visually unrecognisable as the police force. They often have to hide their identity, for example, to observe people or to enforce arrest warrants."
RIght, because a detective going undercover to gather evidence means it's perfectly okay for masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets.
Detectives are "masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets".
You've never seen a takedown of street level drug dealers? Unmarked cars, plainclothes police, grab everyone off the street?
I'm really trying to understand what specifically you find objectionable. Is it the fact that ICE isn't in uniform? Or that they wear masks? Or that they arrest people?
> Detectives are "masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets".
The moment they make an actual arrest (which is rare, since they prefer to maintain their cover), they identify and are held accountable for how they do it.
Yes. Jumping the border is a misdemeanor if you don't immediately self report to request asylum.
But the majority of people getting rounded up right now are for unlawful presence.
And a lot of them have no idea that their presence was marked unlawful until ICE gets them. There's a reason civil offenses are supposed to be handled with proper notification and court summonses instead of this shit.
You can campaign for an amendment to give up American's right to self-determination if you want that but you don't get to just decide to do that on your own.
The "right of self determination" does not exist in the US constitution or law. It's a rhetorical slogan coined by Woodrow Wilson, and his idea of "self determination" came from growing up as a racist southerner who felt the South should have been allowed to self-determine a continuation of chattel slavery.
How this has anything to do with the immigrants in my city trying to live normal lives, perhaps you can explain.
Do you even know what the process is? Or even have a clue how many people deported had a process but it resulted in an outcome they and maybe you did not like?
I don’t have time to investigate everybody, but of the sampling I did all had orders active to be deported.
The part most of you are missing is there was a process. And failure to comply is what results in people showing up at your house and putting you on a plane.
This is no different than if I murder somebody and and escape after the trail before going to jail. 10 years later I am at a coffee shop. Maybe I have a good job a wife a new born and I have been a functional member of society. You better bet that I’ll be arrested and the Jane to go to jail once somebody finds out.
We would need to 100x the amount of lawyers to deal with the huge pulse that was always going to occur when this aspect of law was going to be enforced.
Cool, so no more due process because it's inconvenient.
Hey, you look kinda brown...I think you're an illegal. Or, you posted a funny picture of a political figure on Facebook. Off to El Salvador with you! No, you don't get a day in court, I don't care if you and your parents and your grandparents were all born in the US, you are being sent to a torture camp in a country you've never been to because I THINK you are illegal.
See how that works? Due process is a RIGHT FOR EVERY FUCKING PERSON BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT, YOU FUCKING FASCIST. You CANNOT bypass THE fundamental part of the justice process because you're making shit up and want to deploy tan people with autism awareness tattoos, or people who think maybe shooting hungry kids in Gaza is bad.
In for example Germany they have raids on workspaces to check for illegal workers as well. But the "police" (customs officer?) are not masked and also check the employer. They can punish them for too long work hours or hiring "illegals".
What I have seen of ICE in the media it feels a bit one sided.
Employers who knowingly employ illegal workers in the US also get in trouble. However, we also have a system called e-verify which handles checking the employability of people for them. It's relatively easily gamed via identity fraud.
> Employers who knowingly employ illegal workers in the US also get in trouble
They might get a slap on the wrist fine that probably doesn't even negate the profits off the illegal labor.
> However, we also have a system called e-verify
The majority of states do not require e-verify for most jobs. Many states don't have any requirements for e-verify and a few only have limited requirements.
Authoritarian states often function via selective enforcement of laws. We see that here. They will use any angle, any technicality to remove someone. Lived here for almost 50 years and are a productive member of your community but you're on a stayed order of release pending you check in regularly and you do so? Sorry, we changed our minds and are deporting you because legally we can. Please come with us in the unmarked car. [0]
Tried to kill police officers while trying to overturn an election on behalf of the dear leader? We'll pardon you and give you a job on a task force about weaponization of government. [1]
The law will be applied to the harshest extent to those Trump and his ilk see as enemies and will be warped in favor of his current friends.
Or, as a Preuvian facist president put it: "For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law!"
I agree with the meat of what you say, but is selective enforcement really so unique to authoritarian governments?
In the US, even before recent administrations, we’ve long had evidence of uneven application of laws. Police love power. Criminalizing more stuff gives them more power to decide who to target.
Look how the war on drugs and policies like stop and frisk have targeted black folks. Even innocuous sounding things like seatbelt laws give police the ability to criminalize “driving while black.”
Meanwhile we’ve long ignored white collar crimes like wage theft. You know rich families aren’t going to be affected by anti-abortion laws.
My heavily tattooed White friends and I recently ignored no trespassing to swim in a nice river in TX. We agreed that if the cops came, I (non tattooed, White) would do the talking.
Anyway, the police have never been interested in holding the rich and powerful to account.
Chattel slavery- direct, constant, and complete control over one's life and death, and the reduction of the person to mere property, is essentially the most authoritarian institution there can be.
Not a huge Chomsky fan. He calls himself an anarchist, but if you pin him down on specifics he turns into a minarchist rhetorically, and a Social Democrat in practical matters.
He's similar to Lenin, imo, in that he advocates using the State to prepare to dismantle the State, all while gassing up the things that the State provides (e.g. social protections). There's never anything more than a vague promise to move on from that in the future, which is exactly the same as the single-party-State USSR.
People mistake Capitalism as the driver for authoritarianism, but Capitalism is just the means to gain power/wealth in our current society, with hierarchical government being the framework within which Capitalism operates. Greed is the driver, and greed is intrinsic to humans. But greed without a framework to amass power (like a State) can only operate on an individual level.
For the reader curious why the woman in [0] didn't get permanent residency via marriage:
> Milne was divorced from the nonimmigrant student she married prior to 1983. She then married a U.S. citizen but we found, in our above-said unpublished opinion, that she had admitted that it was a marriage of convenience. After another divorce, she married her current husband, a marriage that is uncontested as "bona fide." Her request for legal permanent resident status based on this marriage was denied under INA § 204(c) which precludes approval based on even an admittedly good-faith union if the petitioner had previously contracted an improper marriage.
And you can be arrested for overstaying a visa. It used to be that after a process that does not include being swiped off the streets by masked thugs. Now we're doing it this way.
> a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police
Simply enforcing laws is not "becoming a police state", the current administration is doing far worse than this, and is actually blatantly and arbitrarily breaking laws according to multiple courts in various jurisdictions.
This includes ICE which has become a tool of this police state by deporting people (including in a case a US citizen, a two-year-old girl) without due process.
The trouble with laws is two-fold: poorly designed legislation is easily abused by those who enforce it, and regulatory capture often prevents necessary changes to existing laws.
A police state does not mean "a state where laws are enforced." The government is not establishing a police state because it's enforcing laws. It's establishing a police state because it's establishing a police state. But I suspect you already knew that, because I've seen comments like this one far too many times to continue assuming good faith.
This ice stuff is more than that. The law and order stuff is more about getting law and order focused people like you onboard.
You should read about how Mussolini came to power and consolidated control. We’re not building a $49B paramilitary force and database to find typos in 50 year old naturalization documents to deport their descendants for law and order. ICE is something else.
If we had laws Trump would be in jail. If we respected immigration laws Trump would be in jail. Since he he's in the white house I don't think we can saw the US takes following the law very seriously
The mere existence of the app shows resistance to the government's attempts at establishing something approaching a police state. They are against the app for that reason. They don't really care about what it does or does not do. It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" and they'd still happily claim it endangers officers lives.
(the fact that they're also able to attack independent media at the same time just makes it all the more alluring target)