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

461–470 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#461

Post by nobody9999 »

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…

>It makes no sense that habitual criminals are protected and not deported by the local government.

Deportation[0]?

   : an act or instance of deporting
   
   especially : the removal from a country by an executive government agency of 
   a foreign-born noncitizen (such as one whose presence violates immigration 
   laws or is ruled detrimental to the public welfare)
How does that apply to citizens born in the US? Who make up the vast majority of "habitual criminals." All the data shows that immigrants (legal or otherwise) are significantly less likely to commit serious crimes than citizens.

Or are you claiming that the 14th Amendment[1] doesn't apply to everyone?

>It’s sad that this has become a political discussion instead of an effort to fix all the horrible problems in the city.

What does Border Patrol and Customs Enforcement have to do with municipal issues? What business is it of the Federal government, anyway?

The people of Chicago elect their own representatives to run their city. While there have been significant issues there, they are improving without any help (and I'd say ICE/CPB/National guard from other states just makes things much, much worse) from the Federal government.

What's more, Obama deported more folks than Trump in his first term -- without masked thugs. And Biden deported more folks than Obama and Trump combined, also without masked thugs shooting citizens.

You're making the wrong argument here. Not because I don't agree with that argument, but because the facts don't support it.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deportation

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#462

Post by tptacek »

jonway wrote: post #459
tptacek wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point did mismanaged immigration during the Obama administration cause a crisis in my local municipality or force us to reallocate funds or scramble to find housing for over 100 people that were otherwise living in makeshift tents outside a police station. I think you'll find it pretty easy to pull up news stories; October 2023 was the peak of it in Chicagoland but you'll see stories running all the way into th…

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 for housing and wraparound services for migrants were expedited on an emergency basis.

We could have taken in an integer multiple more migrants than we did in 2023. But we'd have to have the programs in place to do it. Instead, they built a clownfire clusterfuck of policy and procedure all while sending gravely mixed signals about the likelihood of success for economic migrants, which were (quite reasonably, and, in fact, correctly) interpreted by those people --- people smart and tenacious enough to cross the Darien Gap on foot! --- as a flashing green light.

It's not that the country doesn't have the capacity for those people. It does. But only if the mechanisms are in place to on-board them --- sufficient immigration judges, temporary housing, routing throughout the country, tracking. We had absolutely none of that, and the southern governors knew it and called the bluff.

I think people who care about Democratic party electoral success should be extremely wary of self-soothing explanations about how we did everything right and it was Republican misrepresentation and sabotage that got us here. I don't agree with conservatives on immigration and don't think the institutional Republican party is a good-faith actor on this issue, but that doesn't matter --- the only thing that matters is what the median voter thinks the next Democratic president will do on immigration. If they believe it's the same thing Biden did, that's going to cost us.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#463

Post by tastyface »

galangalalgol wrote: post #93
carterschonwald wrote: post #28

This shit is so fucked up. And at a certain level I’m disappointed that we are still trying to fix it peaceably when every day of delay, there is irreparable harm to physical wellness, mental health and rights as citizens or residents. Also science in America is fucked for the next decade.

Violent resolution of the situation would almost certainly result in a society with even fewer freedoms. That is the historical lesson. Violent resistance to authoritarian takeovers gives them an air of legitimacy they need. That is the whole point of chicago and the attempt in Portland. They want violent resistance to justify crack downs. Instead they look like storm troopers. I am in awe of the restraint of those l…

I do not advocate violence, but I do often think back to this quote:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If... if... We didn’t love freedom enough." --Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#464

Post by nobody9999 »

lurk2 wrote: post #429
nobody9999 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 evi…

>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, while lying that it was the abducted citizen who caused the ruckus. And Biden did so without those same masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, then shooting them multiple times, lying about the circumstances and destroying evidence about it.

No one, other than you, said anything about "abolishing immigration enforcement entirely."

But we certainly don't need masked thugs with a budget larger than the Military budgets of all but three nations to do so. As the last 250 years have shown.

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? Okay. Let's start with you and your family. What's that? That's not what you meant? You mean you think it's okay as long as it's not you?

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#465

Post by throwaway173738 »

atmavatar wrote: post #220
throwaway173738 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the people who suggest voting doesn’t matter are either suffering from some nihilistic delusion or they’re spreading a self-serving lie.

Or, they live in one of the 40-something states where the election margins are large enough that it doesn't matter whether they vote. My state hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. The only two elections with less than a 10-point spread since then were in 1976 (7.5% spread) and 1992 (5% spread due to Perot stealing votes from Bush Sr.). I moved to this state in 1993.

Local government and utility commissioners are very important too.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#466

Post by ethbr1 »

EasyMark wrote: post #407
testing22321 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That will certainly not work for children, as their faces change. I think that is the point.

That and they don't care. I think they are selected to be robots for the regime, and their training eventually expanded for all police work as a private army for the King. I don't believe that they are just for "ICE activities". Their budget dwarfs others like the DEA and CIA now with the "big bogus bill". Reminds me of certain other historical police force origins.

> Their budget dwarfs others like the DEA and CIA now with the "big bogus bill"

What numbers are you looking at?

For reference, FY25 budgets:

"CIA budget" (which isn't publicly split from the general IC top line authorizations): $73.4 B for NIP and $28.2 B for MIP https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10524

ICE: $28.7 B (after OBBB increase) https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-...

DEA: $3.3 B https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024...

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#467

Post by lurk2 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #464
lurk2 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 evi…

>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 rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil, rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen.

We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#468

Post by lurk2 »

ozozozd wrote: post #443
lurk2 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 evi…

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that in your view it’s worth deporting a few citizens to a prison in another country so that we can deport folks at Home Depot parking lots etc.

You’re misconstruing what I’ve said. I would direct you to the site guidelines:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#469

Post by giraffe_lady »

chasil wrote: post #455
giraffe_lady wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please just take the good advice you were given. This response only proves how out of your depth you are here. We are currently trying to get my neighbor proof of citizenship so he can get out. He is a US citizen who had his passport on him when ICE took him. Now he has no passport.

This is precisely why the passport card should be carried, but the paper passport should be left at home.

[flagged]

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#470

Post by scoofy »

nobody9999 wrote: post #460
scoofy wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 n…

>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. And if that occurs, whoever is responsible should be prosecuted. You know that whole "rule of law" thing that seems to be so unfashionable, among certain masked folks and the liars who run them, these days?

I mean I completely agree with you.
Post reply on HN