Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Want You to Understand Chicago

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#491

Post by drewbug01 »

scoofy wrote: post #424
drewbug01 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

There is a world of difference between “passing a state law that directly contradicts federal law” and “declining to proactively enforce federal laws in ways that are not required by those laws.”

To drive the point home: federal immigration laws are already enforced by federal agencies. Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law. There are no federal laws on the books requiring them to do the job of the federal government for them (they could pass one, but they haven’t).

Calling that “nullification” is intellectually dishonest. As you said - “if you don’t like the law, fight to change it.” Don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#492

Post by pkilgore »

pizlonator wrote: post #17

This is really sad to read! Can folks who live in Chicago confirm/deny/comment on the extent to which this article gets it right? (I have no reason to believe that it's an exaggeration, but I sincerely hope that it is.)

It gets it all right. We're being terrorized. If you don't care fuck you.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#493

Post by pkilgore »

daft_pink wrote: post #136

I lived in Chicago before this and experienced shootings in my neighborhood every month and carjackings and drug addicts just roaming the streets and wigging out. It makes no sense that habitual criminals are protected and not deported by the local government. I think if the local government worked with ICE to deport criminals, this probably wouldn’t be happening the way that it was. I think the City of Chicago is to…

You've never been to Chicago.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#494

Post by turnsout »

UncleMeat wrote: post #316
turnsout wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're right—I don't think it will be over immigration. I think they'll lose in 2026 and tear themselves apart infighting about who's to blame.

Losing in 2026 barely matters. Existing dem leadership has no desire to end the filibuster, which means we get one bill a year that is full of technocratic approaches. The Trump administration, backed by the supreme court, is accruing more and more power to simply ignore the will of Congress. Even if the dems get some guts and defund ICE, the Trump administration has already demonstrated that it is happy to just ille…

I agree, but that’s not far off from simply dissolving the country and starting over under a new name. Maybe that’s the way forward.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#495

Post by inemesitaffia »

UncleMeat wrote: post #489
inemesitaffia wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The state is not allowed to use unlimited force against people suspected of having broken the law. Half of the bill of rights is about the rights of criminal and civil defendants (more if we include the 9th). The law requires that law enforcement has a specific kind of warrant in order to enter a location without permission and detain somebody. This law is regularly being broken by agents. "Oh, they are illegal so wh…

I can tell it's you that down voted me.

Agents can enter buildings without warrants under limited circumstances. It's not a hard bar.

Ordinarily when any crime is in plain view or in chase of a fleeing suspect, or (dubiously) when the individual is believed to be part of a proscribed organisation.

Administrative warrants are okay when there's a specific record of an individual being there. Like if the website for the organisation posts the person as being an employee amongst other reasons.

Regardless, none of these bar the deportation of people caught up.

Horrifying is just your opinion. What's fact is all these are just objections to deportation of people not supposed to be in the country.

They can file their civil rights claims

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#496

Post by scoofy »

empath75 wrote: post #488
scoofy wrote: 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 are making a legalistic argument to justify absolutely monstrous behavior and you should probably spend some time examining why you are doing that. If the law justifies an atrocity, you should not defend the law.

I'm not someone who thinks all laws should be followed blindly. When human rights are on the line, yes, we have an obligation to resist. Some people think enforcing immigration law is a violation of human rights.

I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. Where we are breaking up families with young children is where I would draw my line, and that is certainly happening, but again my concern here is with the escalation that is nullification.

I simply think that if I were to go to, say, the UK and decided to not board a flight home and make a life for myself that I could be forcibly deported... and the Labour Gov't in the UK does forcible deportations:

https://londondaily.com/uk-government-reports-record-deporta...

I think the ideal solution is to create a system where overstaying a visa is practically impossible. This way people could not find them in a situation where they've established a life that would make leaving especially painful. However, since it has proven to be too practically difficult to negotiate comprehensive immigration reform for various reasons, the American left -- a left that I consider myself a part of -- has gone in the complete opposite direction for most of my lifetime. We have established an overt nullification policy that effectively facilitates folks ignoring immigration law. Now we have to deal with immigration enforcement we don't like, and it will be very difficult for us to protect young children losing a parent because we've decided that we want to effectively facilitate all folks here illegally, not just those who have found themselves with young families.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#497

Post by UncleMeat »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #495
UncleMeat wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state is not allowed to use unlimited force against people suspected of having broken the law. Half of the bill of rights is about the rights of criminal and civil defendants (more if we include the 9th). The law requires that law enforcement has a specific kind of warrant in order to enter a location without permission and detain somebody. This law is regularly being broken by agents. "Oh, they are illegal so wh…

I can tell it's you that down voted me. Agents can enter buildings without warrants under limited circumstances. It's not a hard bar. Ordinarily when any crime is in plain view or in chase of a fleeing suspect, or (dubiously) when the individual is believed to be part of a proscribed organisation. Administrative warrants are okay when there's a specific record of an individual being there. Like if the website for the…

The comment is sufficiently old and deep that I cannot downvote your post.

1983 claims have been winnowed away into basically nothing by the courts. They aren't a meaningful path to justice.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#499

Post by nobody9999 »

lurk2 wrote: post #480
nobody9999 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I apologize. I completely missed your issue. I'll try to address it here.

>I've explicitly addressed everything you've posted.

Actually, you ignored (at least IMHO) the most important issue I addressed: that of the curtailment of our hard-won individual rights of free expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, due process and privacy, among others. You know, those rights that are explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, paid for with the blood and treasure of our ancestors and protected with the blood and treasure of more recent ancestors.

You didn't address that at all.

That's what's got me up in arms here.

You appear to have imagined that I must think that "everyone on the planet, especially the darkies from Central and South America must be allowed to live in lurk2's house, eat his food and fuck his wife." Far from it.

My problem with all of this is that when you take away the rights enshrined in our Constitution for some, you set the precedent to do so for everyone. And I'm not okay with that.

I guess I also asked you the wrong question. You appear to be okay with the diminution and curtailment of the rights explicitly protected in our highest law.

I guess I'd like to know why you're so willing to do so.

And yes, I strongly suspect that you're not posting in good faith, since you ignored (and then claimed otherwise) the most important parts of the discussion we ('we' meaning the HN community) were having about this.

Sadly, I expect you're channeling the anti-semites that Sartre mused upon[0] many years ago. And more's the pity.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#500

Post by scoofy »

drewbug01 wrote: post #491
scoofy wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

There is a world of difference between “passing a state law that directly contradicts federal law” and “declining to proactively enforce federal laws in ways that are not required by those laws.” To drive the point home: federal immigration laws are already enforced by federal agencies. Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law . There are no federal laws on the books requiring the…

>Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law.

This is clearly false in regards to most federal laws. To illustrate this, I'll take an exceptional example. If there where a serial killer who was living in IL, but had only killed anyone in other states, I suspect that IL government would likely go out of their way to assist the Feds in apprehending this killer, even though this is not required by state law.

IL would likely do the same for many, if not most, federal laws. The point of nullification is exactly when the state does not help when asked, still there are reasons for practical resources there, but it becomes very obvious nullification when the state passes laws preventing individuals who would LIKE to help, like local policed departments, from helping even if they wanted to. And this is exactly what has happened in many blue states.

Pretending that's not overt nullification is unserious.

Post reply on HN