851–860 of 977 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are several English cops run down with cars. https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/... https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/simranjit-kajl... https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-01-28/teen-charged-aft... Your comments on these?
Additional examples of people assaulting British police officers using cars and not being shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no comment about illegally knocking down doors? No comment about stopping naturalization ceremonies? I'll go back to this: if we wanted to reduce crime, we'd go after citizens first.
I’m unfamiliar with the details of the door knocking case, but I’ll defer to the courts on it. More broadly, plenty of citizens have had their fourth amendment rights violated, petitioned the court for redress, and received it - that doesn’t mean we stop enforcing traffic laws, drug laws, or disband the local police. Naturalization: not mentioned in my thread that I can see, but just like parole, TPS, and other immig…
Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no comment about illegally knocking down doors? No comment about stopping naturalization ceremonies? I'll go back to this: if we wanted to reduce crime, we'd go after citizens first.
Simply incorrect. That study is yet another that fails to account for the fact that immigration status is not known immediately upon arrest. > Studies purporting to show low illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas fail to account for the fact that illegal immigrants are not always identified immediately upon arrest. In many cases, illegal immigrants are identified only after they are imprisoned. Given sufficient time…
Yes, status isn’t always known at arrest, and time-lag/unknown-status classification is a real measurement issue. But that’s not a demonstration that the cited studies are false; it's a methodological dispute about how Texas data should be interpreted.
Even CIS effectively concedes the key limitation: “any crime” conviction rates aren’t meaningful under their own description because identification is biased toward longer prison terms/serious offenses. That means their approach can’t legitimately be used as a general claim that “undocumented commit more crime.”
Also, Texas is one of the few places where researchers do try to reconcile arrest/ID systems (e.g., Light et al., PNAS 2020): https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
And there are direct responses to CIS’s Texas framing (e.g., Cato 2024): https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immigrant-murde...
So: criticize uncertainty, sure, but “therefore the low-crime finding is simply incorrect” doesn’t follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The citizens could easily vote in a new president in 2028 who defunded ICE altogether. You think that after two more years of this regime that any such candidate would be allowed anywhere near whatever pretense of an electoral system still exists? I need you to understand that the United States is already no longer a democratic republic in anything but name. The system of government you're assuming will fix the mess…
That rhetoric is popular online, but I have not heard any convincing argument for how it plays out in practice.
If anyone had described to you the timeline of this administration from 2024 to now, prior to it happening, you probably would have dismissed it as ridiculous. Yet here we are, this is already normal.
The way it plays out is they have two more years to lay groundwork and entrench their power, dismantle systems and burn alliances which will take decades to rebuild, declare martial law because someone twitched at an ICE goon the wrong way, and possibly start a war in Europe, and no one stops them because people like you think they'll just get to vote the baddies out and everything will just go back as it was.
I hope you're right, I don't think you are but I hope you are. But if you think everyone is just engaging in "online rhetoric" then I think you're naive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved Where is this assumption coming from? Of course I don't want people to break the laws of the country or immigrate illegally, I never argued for that either. What I don't understand, if Obama managed to throw out more illegals than Trump did for the same duration of time, yet with a lot less chaos and bloodshed, and you truly wa…
There is a huge difference between turning people away at the border and tallying a "deportation", and removing people from the interior of the US. The flow of illegal aliens crossing the border has largely been eliminated. [1] > should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process? I want a process that actually works. There has been no serious headway made in…
The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
The ABC/Brookings story is about net migration turning negative in 2025, mostly due to fewer entries. Net migration is not a measure of the unauthorized population, and the article even notes removals in 2025 are only modestly higher than 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Also, the claim “no headway for decades until now” is inconsistent with standard estimates: Pew shows a decline from 2007 to 2019 in the unauthorized population. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obvious examples: health care, education, social benefits provision, public transit, arms control. All involve expansions of the state bureaucracy and decision making power. So what you have established is that the left and right both want to expand government power, but the left wants to use it to improve the general welfare while the right wants to use it to crush their fellow citizens. Thank you for the clarific…
I generally lean left, and favor a large welfare state, reasonable regulation, etc. and I find your statement unfair. People can reasonably disagree on these things. In particular, the role of the federal government (vs the states) is important. Many of the benefit programs have no real need to be national, other than the ability of the federal government to borrow an unlimited amount of money. And many regulations a…
Per the WSJ, as of January 10th this year, ICE has identified 13 instances of agents firing at or into civilian vehicles, leaving eight people shot with two confirmed dead. Five of those shot were citizens. According to court records, only one of these civilians was armed and never drew his weapon. There is a sickness curdling in the dark corners of Silicon Valley. These people need to be humiliated for being the sni…
There are reports that ICE threw a flash bang into a vehicle last night that contained a father trying to leave with his children to get them to safety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbMO7u44LGM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no comment about illegally knocking down doors? No comment about stopping naturalization ceremonies? I'll go back to this: if we wanted to reduce crime, we'd go after citizens first.
I’m unfamiliar with the details of the door knocking case, but I’ll defer to the courts on it. More broadly, plenty of citizens have had their fourth amendment rights violated, petitioned the court for redress, and received it - that doesn’t mean we stop enforcing traffic laws, drug laws, or disband the local police. Naturalization: not mentioned in my thread that I can see, but just like parole, TPS, and other immig…
Just because it's happened before we don't have to put up with it. The door to door searches must stop. It is clearly a constitutional violation.
Since you like to defer to the courts, I assume you believe it wrong that the government shipped people like Kilmar Garcia to an El Salvador prison without any court being involved?
> Naturalization:
Sorry, I got threads mixed up. In Boston, ICE canceled a ceremony minutes before immigrants were to be sworn in as US citizens. You don't have a problem with this?
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/12/08/unspeakabl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rhetoric is popular online, but I have not heard any convincing argument for how it plays out in practice.
Your ability to be convinced by arguments, or refusal thereof, is not an objective measure of the likelihood of future events. If anyone had described to you the timeline of this administration from 2024 to now, prior to it happening, you probably would have dismissed it as ridiculous. Yet here we are, this is already normal. The way it plays out is they have two more years to lay groundwork and entrench their power,…
Okay but that just makes both of us crazy speculators.
> If anyone had described to you the timeline of this administration from 2024 to now
I would have said it was a plausible but terrible misuse of the executive branch's authority that I hoped not to see. After the first administration, I definitely would not call it ridiculous. Basically everything he has done so far is exercising power we've been delegating to the executive branch.
> declare martial law
That's easier said than done. And even using actual law, in the form of the insurrection act, would not give him the power to undermine elections. This country had elections during the civil war, and we are not quite there yet.
> But if you think everyone is just engaging in "online rhetoric" then I think you're naive.
I am trying to be charitable. A lot of the rhetoric is over-the-top spinning everything for maximum doom. What is really happening is bad enough without trashing our credibility through easily disprovable statements.
And sure, maybe I'm just naive. We should chat about it again in late January 2029.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The particular problem here is the vast majority of people that are writing this software 1. Don't care, blood is great. 2. Think they are the good guys. 3. Are more worried about their next paycheck and having bad things happen to them related to not paying rent.
Not surprised. At least 30% of the population voted for the current president. Should be some software developers among those?