Live data from Hacker News

I Want You to Understand Chicago

aphyr.com

421–430 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#421
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s sad that this has become a political discussion instead of an effort to fix all the horrible problems in the city. Every American citizen deserves due process and a fair punishment. This is outlined in the constitution and its amendments, and is not up for negotiation. If you live in the US and don't believe in these values, I don't see how any other citizen of the US could people like you as anything other th…

> Every American citizen deserves due process Every human being, but yes.

Every human being indeed does, but knowing this site someone would invariably "well akshully" this point.

Says a lot about the audience of this site, I suppose.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#422
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conservative message machine is determinative, and they would find something to effectively raise a storm about: immigration, inflation, etc. If Biden cut inflation, they would have demonized him regarding employment. Or just make something up - they can say anything at this point, and the Dems and others have made themselves helpless. They will always find something - Biden and Dems were being called pedophiles…

I don't think that's true. It was easy to call in Trumps first loss, i remember telling my dad: Economy goes bad, he'll be right back. Immigration may have mattered enough, and likewise Bidens cognitive decline. Lastly people didn't like Kamala in the primary, and they dont like candidates forced on them. That was many things stacked against a dem victory, and it was still close. The dems main ongoing weakness as an…

The dems' huge screwup was abandoning the working and middle classes, instead choosing to be "The Other Party For Billionaires, But With Different Identity Politics".

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#423
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are familiar with the 4th Amendment? These acts are a clear violation of 4th Amendment rights, rights which extend to both citizens and non-citizens.

>When do ICE agents need a warrant to arrest immigrants? >A judicial warrant is a legal order authorizing law enforcement’s search, seizure or arrest on private property. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge. >Immigration agents also use administrative warrants, which carry lower legal weight. Administrative warrants are signed by federal agents such as immigration judges or officers. These warrants allow ICE agen…

For me, its really simple. ICE agents wouldn't need to be masked and unidentified if what they are doing is okay.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#424
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When do ICE agents need a warrant to arrest immigrants? >A judicial warrant is a legal order authorizing law enforcement’s search, seizure or arrest on private property. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge. >Immigration agents also use administrative warrants, which carry lower legal weight. Administrative warrants are signed by federal agents such as immigration judges or officers. These warrants allow ICE agen…

You keep saying “nullification”. Can you explain precisely what you mean by that? Because as far as I’m aware, immigration law is not a concern of the state, and what folks typically mean when they say “nullification” in this context is “the state isn’t doing the fed’s job for them.” You also brought up warrants to enter private property. What do you make of the incident a few days ago where an agent hopped a fence t…

>Because as far as I’m aware, immigration law is not a concern of the state, and what folks typically mean when they say “nullification” in this context is “the state isn’t doing the fed’s job for them.”

It's not just immigration law, it's any federal law. States have the right to ignore federal law if they like. This is called nullification. However, it very, very rarely happens because its inherently undemocratic. It especially rarely happens to the extent that cities and states pass explicit laws that order state law enforcement to ignore federal laws, and even work against the federal government's interests.

It's happened recently with marijuana legalization, with success. Where the federal government did some raids, but marijuana legalization is politically popular, so they backed off... and there has even been talk in some years of ending the illegality of marijuana federally.

State nullification has been somewhat unsuccessful with illegal immigration. These raids are the result of the federal government going its own way to enforce the law without cooperation of the states. The last time we saw this level of federal enforcement against state objection is after Brown v Board of Education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

I good comparison to the seriousness of nullification as an act that is inherently an escalation is gun control laws. Suppose some red states wanted to just nullify the National Firearms Act -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act -- The are perfectly in their rights to ignore federal laws and allow firearms dealers to sell unregistered, suppressed, machine guns to felons. The only way neighboring blues states -- obviously outraged that this is happening -- can do anything about this is by seeking federal enforcement, again, which would include raids, arrests, etc.

>You also brought up warrants to enter private property. What do you make of the incident a few days ago where an agent hopped a fence to arrest someone, without a warrant? Should we just ignore those violations of our rights?

I'm very much not saying ICE is always acting within the law. Like any other policing force, they're going to make mistakes (intentional or otherwise). We should be very angry about those things, especially if they're happening in bad faith. The problem I see is that when we're yelling about actually -- and unfortunately -- legal things then those serious issues are just going to look like background noise. The other serious problem is that all this crying wold literally makes the left look undemocratic. You don't like the law? Fight to change it. Don't just take the ball and go home, and then cry when the neighbors come to your house to get the ball back.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to cite a reputable source? With an account created just before this comment, I’d assume this is just low-effort trolling.

I don't care what you believe about reputation.

Got it. Trolling.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#426
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the solution that doesn't involve having to disappear the half of the country that you don't agree with? You can't form a country with people who want half the country to disappear. There's only three possible outcomes here: - civil war - secession - remove all people that want other people to disappear

I think you're missing the fourth option which is rediscovering civility, agreeing to disagree, etc. Are the Republicans doing that right now? Probably not. Are the Democrats doing that right now? Also probably not.

"Are the people doing the humane and civil things the same as the people actively supporting and promoting evil and hate? I guess so!"

If you're not being disingenuous you're being incredibly infantile.

Take a big, long think.

>agreeing to disagree,

Disagreement about what exactly? Please, spell it out.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#427
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When do ICE agents need a warrant to arrest immigrants? >A judicial warrant is a legal order authorizing law enforcement’s search, seizure or arrest on private property. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge. >Immigration agents also use administrative warrants, which carry lower legal weight. Administrative warrants are signed by federal agents such as immigration judges or officers. These warrants allow ICE agen…

For me, its really simple. ICE agents wouldn't need to be masked and unidentified if what they are doing is okay.

>Cities like Milwaukee require police officers to make their names or officer identification numbers visible. This ensures that if there is an allegation of wrongdoing, the officer can be identified. This also is to guard against impersonators.

>There are exceptions. For instance, Milwaukee police detectives wear "plain clothes," often a dress shirt and pants. And, of course, undercover officers dress in such a way not to be identifiable, by design.

>At the 2024 Republican National Convention, where 4,500 outside officers came to assist, the Milwaukee Police Department was clear that any visible uniform change would be deemed an escalation of force.

>Federal law enforcement, like FBI and ICE, for the most part do not have an official uniform, though during raids they typically wear body armor, windbreakers or other gear with the name of their agency emblazoned on it.

>At times, federal and local law enforcement have covered their faces during raids, most often when they involve gangs or terrorism where there is a risk of retaliation.

>In 2025, ICE officers have increasingly been wearing face coverings. ICE leaders said that's because their officers increasingly are being assaulted and harassed online.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/06/30/why-are...

I agree with you that ICE agents should absolutely show their faces. That said, it's not unprecedented. I also think it's naive to think there would not be retaliation against them personally.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of your thoughts on immigration and ICE, if a cop tries to pull you over, and instead you decide to speed off and barricade yourself inside a daycare, you’re probably going to get arrested. I view ICE as wholly illegitimate. If I were on the jury in this case, I would vote to acquit Ms. Galeano no matter what the prosecution said, and many people out there who have not said this online would do the same.…

> I view ICE as wholly illegitimate Though you may find this surprising, your personal opinion on the legitimacy of an organization doesn’t actually have legal standing.

> legal standing

To paraphrase a show TFA’s author introduced me to:

What are laws? We just don’t know.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#429
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>The number of times this has happened has not been 0, but in terms of documented instances, you're not talking about a very large group of people. "you're not talking about a very large group of people"? Does that make it acceptable? If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared? That's not a rhetorical question.

> If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared?

I didn’t articulate that properly. There have probably been a non-zero number of illegal detentions, and a few instances (only about a dozen that I’m aware of, most of those preceding the present administration) where citizens have been deported. The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0, but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#430
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My aunt is a republican lobbyist. She is also a drunk. This means that she gets drunk and texts the family things all of the time. She wants everybody in US cities to suffer. Illegal immigrant, legal immigrant, or citizen. She thinks that people who live in places like Chicago are snooty woke idiots and that it'd be better if cops hit every single person there with a nightstick and took them away from their kids.

This has nothing to do with my comment.
Post reply on HN