Live data from Hacker News

I Want You to Understand Chicago

aphyr.com

471–480 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#471
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely. Who said anything about that? As I pointed out in another comment, the Biden administration deported more folks in four years than Obama and Trump did in twelve. And he did so without masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, dragging them out of their cars and abducting them off the street…

> All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote: > The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0 You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement ra…

>You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration.

Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts by ICE that you are willing to tolerate.

And would that number change if you and/or your family are among those?[1]

As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. Because we're supposed to live in a society of laws, not unaccountable, masked thugs who can act with impunity -- regardless of the goal.

The ends do not justify the means.

Want to be "tough" on those who have committed a civil infraction (overstaying their visas -- the vast majority of those who aren't here on valid documents) and on those who evaded border security (a misdemeanor). Fine. Then do so without harassing, beating and murdering folks, including those who don't have valid residence documents/visas -- as the penalty for such things is a fine and a short jail stay, then removal to their home country -- and certainly not creating a "papers please"[0] police state in our free and open society.

That's not the society I've lived in for more than half a century. Nor is it one I wish to live in.

Why do you want to live in such a society? No. Really. I'd like to understand why you want to live in a police state. Do tell.

>Given that a system is necessary,

Which system is "necessary"? We never (for 250 years) had to have masked thugs maiming, murdering and disappearing my fellow Americans before. Why is that? Because it's illegal and an explicit violation of Constitutional rights.

Why is it "necessary" now?

[0] So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?

[1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration Enforcement is illegitimate apparently.

> Immigration Enforcement You make it sound so reasonable when you say it like that. But here’s the thing: If you’re gonna die on the hill that “simply enforcing immigration laws” requires invading cities and detaining people without due process, everyday people are going to come to the conclusion that it might not be worth it. It’s wild how far you guys thought you could get with that phrasing. Like at this point, y…

My argument here is that there's people opposed to any immigration enforcement period.

Both parties promised me last election was the last.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#473
post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking for the appropriate description of what's going on. Somehow I'm led to believe it's okay to move into any country and Bhutan's restrictions on visitors are a-okay in the same breath. Canada's not far and it's not true there either.

The problem is not immigration policy — it’s using terror, illegal detainment, and negligent and excessive force to detain people. Breaking into a daycare with no warrant, no identification (they wear masks and refuse to identify themselves to avoid justice for their crimes), with guns, and dragging a woman out kicking and screaming is both completely illegal in every way and extremely traumatic for everyone - regard…

I don't think the courts will agree.

The presence of a person without a valid visa is illegal and the person working without a working visa is another illegality. Not reporting your presence to the authorities is another level.

Otherwise doesn't erase that.

>avoid justice for their crimes

Some other fact free nonsense.

Yes the drama and force is extra, but it's not illegal, or unprecedented as I'll have you know from seeing video of immigration raids in the past, from the UK, Canada, Sweden and Australia, or pre 49 immigration raids.

There's two classes of people who support this blatant criminality. The business class who relies on legal and illegal immigration + outsourcing to force down local and market wages. And the solidarity crew who are completely pro open borders without restrictions and couch it in other excuses.

Borders are violence, they argue. While complaining about settlers and occupiers of indigenous land. It's a circle you can't square.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#475
post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I was editing the comment but I will stop to prevent any wiggle over here. We have some number of immigrants where I am in a rather conservative small town in a large greater metro area. We have a local history of missionary and aid work, sponsoring people from terrible places like Sudan during the Save Darfur movement, and even farther back to bring Christian european people into the country. I sometimes see…

I think over the long and even the median term, we benefit from arbitrarily-skilled migration over the southern border. I'm to the left of the median Democrat on immigration. But in the short term of 2023 and 2024, we had chaos and direct costs. Black voters in the west side of Chicago noticed that services for their neighborhoods, and for Black homeless people in particular, we underfunded, while large allocations f…

Oh as someone going through my own personal (legal) immigration-related crisis in the '21 - '24 timeframe, I totally don't think any party on any side of aisle was or is doing immigration right :-)

"Look at what you're going through doing it the legal way while illegals are getting put up in 5-star hotels on your tax dollars" was a line I heard a few times. I was very aware of the havoc due to immigrants being bussed across states. At the time I chalked it up to increased border crossings like everybody else.

But also for this reason I had looked into it and realized that the Biden admin's hands were tied by the laws as they existed. And when both parties finally managed to reach an agreement to fix some of the laws, it was torpedoed by a specific party to support a "campaign premise."

I realize I implied upthread that it was "only perceptions", which was incorrect. But if the immigration data does not support the events that transpired, something somewhere is screwy. And its not a stretch to imagine, given the torpedoing above, that it was deliberately managed.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#476
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote: > The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0 You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement ra…

>You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate . Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts b…

> Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? […] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law.

This is demonstrably false; if you aren’t violently resisting it, you’re tolerating it the same way that I am tolerating it. Consider this; Israel’s security is effectively guaranteed by the United States. Israel has killed innocent civilians. The United States is at least partially complicit in these crimes insofar as it continues to finance Israeli national security. This is ongoing. It’s happening now. You can say you won’t tolerate it, but you are tolerating it; you’re here with me now having this conversation, and not engaged in a campaign of guerrilla warfare against those facilitating these crimes.

When I say “the ideal number is 0,” it means just that; there’s not a situation in which it would become legally acceptable for a citizen to be deported, but it could feasibly happen, and if it did, this would not invalidate immigration enforcement as a practice.

> So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?

None of that appears anywhere in my post.

> [1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.

You’re trying to use this as a rhetorical flourish (“How would you feel if the thing I’m pretending like you’re endorsing happened to you, huh?”) but the way you’ve written it betrays that it isn’t meant as a parable for me to learn from, but a fantasy for you to indulge in. You’re doing this because your arguments are weak and you have to rely on a resentful dream that I’ll be proven wrong in an /r/LeopardsAteMyFace style comeuppance.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#477
post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I was editing the comment but I will stop to prevent any wiggle over here. We have some number of immigrants where I am in a rather conservative small town in a large greater metro area. We have a local history of missionary and aid work, sponsoring people from terrible places like Sudan during the Save Darfur movement, and even farther back to bring Christian european people into the country. I sometimes see…

I think over the long and even the median term, we benefit from arbitrarily-skilled migration over the southern border. I'm to the left of the median Democrat on immigration. But in the short term of 2023 and 2024, we had chaos and direct costs. Black voters in the west side of Chicago noticed that services for their neighborhoods, and for Black homeless people in particular, we underfunded, while large allocations f…

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to address this with me, I do appreciate it and I think I've a clearer view on perspectives. The language and rhetoric is harmful to society all while we are achieving the worst outcomes. We are doing a bad job. I can see that there is something grievously wrong with our country. For what its worth, I'm writing here as I would to a close friend in case you feel a question about my sincerity.

I hear what you're saying, I also agree and think you're very correct that it matters what the median voter thinks. Infrastructure and process to manage people we are bringing here is a requirement. Personally, I very firmly want to afford people due process and dignity, both of which they deserve. I'm frustrated by the lack of real information and constant opportunistic black-and-white rhetoric. It can't be that either "You're racist" or pulling up the ladder or conversely "Illegals are rapists and bring crime" and so forth. This has become a convenient wedge issue and it is disheartening, since we are toying with people's lives.

A lot of perceptions of immigration are fueled by (political) media attention and the situation on the ground varies depending on where you are. I clearly recall media stories about a New York City's Roosevelt Hotel used for asylum housing, this is part of the mechanisms like temporary housing and it was then weaponized by disingenuous trolls and politics. I feel like even when the public or individuals do provide the needed parts, we still get bad results. Even if corporations use E-Verify, we still get identity theft and fraud. There was even a Police officer in Maine this year who was deported after DHS' E-Verify cleared him for work status. The only way around that I can see would be a national biometric ID and that might not even do the trick or without considerable downside.

In 2025, We have a militarized terror campaign when the same people controlling the government could have repealed the 1980 Asylum Act, deployed satellites over the southern border amd deployed drones with thermal vision to monitor and intercept crossings, border agents, better background checks for employees, or whatever else for the same cost and effort of what we're doing right now. Last year, Democrats negotiated to fund border security, immigration judges, ICE funding and increased staffing, Asylum reform, surveillance towers on the border (the wall I guess?) and more in a 2024 National Security Emergency Appropriations act in exchange for supporting Ukraine's war against invasion, but Donald Trump convinced the Republicans to kill it. It seemed like everything they had demanded and more.

Right now the USS Gerald Ford is sailing towards Venezuela and I'm no mind reader but it seems not unlikely that we're going to blow up another country, creating a different kind of chaos and destabilizing the region before washing our hands as soon as next week. I honestly don't think that anything less than Blackhawks in the sky across America would be deemed acceptable and I don't think it ends there. They're saying we're demanding gender mutilation and free healthcare for illegal immigrants on USDA.gov right now.

If you're interested, I would be grateful to know whatever ideas you have. You've worked with adversaries, sometimes you have to shut off and disconnect compromised systems. Are we really in the place that (it seems to me) we need to deport all non-citizens and halt all immigration or else they scare people into worse?

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#478
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit? I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it…

There are multiple videos of ICE leaving an arrest in such a hurry they ram into a passing car that had the right of way. Unmarked cars with no lights follow normal traffic laws. They proceeded to yank the US citizen driving it out of her car and take her with them. She was detained without access to representation and then released without charges. That is unlawful arrest, and probably reckless endangerment. It is c…

> It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place.

That was never claimed. What I said was that a warrant is not required when officers are pursuing the suspected perpetrator of a crime. You can feel however you want about it, but that is how the law works.

> They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls.

Are you relating this to the arrest that is being discussed in this thread? There was nothing in the linked articles that suggested this was anywhere near a protest, nor that tear gas was fired.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#479
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate . Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts b…

> Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? […] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. This is demonstrably false; if you aren’t violently resisting it, you’re tolerating it the same way…

I see that you're not willing to substantially engage in discussing the blatant constitutional violations of DHS/ICE/CBP.

That's fine. I'll note your username and ignore your blatherings from now on.

Have a good day. I hope you don't run afoul of the masked thugs.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#480
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? […] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. This is demonstrably false; if you aren’t violently resisting it, you’re tolerating it the same way…

I see that you're not willing to substantially engage in discussing the blatant constitutional violations of DHS/ICE/CBP. That's fine. I'll note your username and ignore your blatherings from now on. Have a good day. I hope you don't run afoul of the masked thugs.

> I see that you're not willing to substantially engage in discussing the blatant constitutional violations of DHS/ICE/CBP.

I've explicitly addressed everything you've posted.

> Have a good day. I hope you don't run afoul of the masked thugs.

I hope that you develop a maturity in your old age that obviously didn't come to you in your youth.

Post reply on HN