OracleOutlook's profile

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 2hr ago

start giving up civil rights.

I never suggested giving up civil rights. You are acting like asking someone likely to have committed a crime, based on a group of factors which includes but is not solely ethnicity, is against civil rights. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled clearly and recently and specifically about this and said ICE's policies here are within the bounds of the Constitution.

Here is where the crisis is coming from:

Politically, when immigration laws are selectively not enforced, specific political parties can basically import their electorate. Instead of a Democracy, where the people choose their leaders, we are in an Anti-Democracy, where the leaders chose the populace. The United States has a few unique political considerations:

The first is that the apportionment of representation is based on the number of people in an area, not solely the number of voters, citizens, or lawful residents.

The second is that we do not have voter ID for national elections. To vote, someone must check a box claiming they are eligible. Many people check this box who are not eligible, either on purpose or accidentally. Many of these people vote.

The third is Birthright citizenship. If someone is born on US territory, they become a citizen. Even if they are raised in another country, they can enter at the age of 18 and vote in our elections.

Basically, the point I am trying to make here is that immigration is a national issue. Even if every immigrant went and stayed in California, it would not affect only California. The rest of the country would be impacted politically by the change. The courts have ruled again and again that immigration is a Federal concern.

Then there are the economic considerations. Let's look at a small example: Non-domiciled CDLs are a mess. Truck driving is an actually good job for people without college education! This is a job Americans love to do! If I wasn't college-tracked from Kindergarten and had terrible eyesight, I would have loved to be a truck driver. I simply adore going on long cross country drives.

During 2021, the price of shipping went way up. Full truck load routes that cost 4k went up to 6k almost overnight. Fuel costs increased, cost of living increased, and truck drivers needed to be paid more. I'm not an industry insider, but I do book a lot of full truckloads and I saw it happen.

Then - suddenly - shipping prices went down. Not because we had deflation and the old truck drivers didn't need to be paid more. Because new truck drivers were brought in from outside America. Ones who could be paid less because they weren't supporting a lower-middle class life for their American family. Ones who could be paid less because they were fudging their insurance paperwork. Ones who could be paid less because they fudged their log books and spent an illegal amount of time on the road.

The American truck drivers started going out of business. They could not compete against this influx of immigrants committing fraud left and right. The Biden administration meanwhile would not investigate this fraud, because they were trying to lower inflation, and bringing down shipping costs help with that.

Meanwhile, news reports about immigrant truck drivers who cannot read traffic signs in English killing people on the roads has become a weekly occurrence.

Meanwhile, the shipping services we procure at our business have decreased in quality rapidly. It is really sketchy and unavoidable. We pay for full truck loads because we need to have product delivered to a specific place at a specific two hour window. We have had multiple cases in the past three years where one person picks up the load from our warehouse, then they swap drivers and we cannot contact the new driver. We have had multiple cases where the driver just goes missing for days after the delivery was supposed to take place. We've called the police to report inventory as stolen. We've had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to compensate for the unreliableness of truck drivers.

This was completely unheard of before 2022. Even if a truck broke down, we would quickly have a freight company volunteer to swap out the trailer onto a new truck to try to get close to our needed delivery date. Communication was good, service great.

The basic bones of this story has repeated itself many times. Industry starts to get expensive (partly due to government regulations and inflation costs out of the industry's control). Corporations begin importing sketchy immigrants with the government's help or complacence. Immigrants undercut local jobs by ignoring the regulations that made business expensive in the first place. Service gets shittier, there are hidden costs borne by many, and Americans are out of jobs.

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 4hr ago

which implies that some 40% of Americans think that illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes shouldn't be deported.

32% of US Adults believe that EVERY illegal immigrant should be deported.

51% believe some should be deported. I'm in this group myself. Of the people in this group:

44% of this 51% believe that all illegal immigrants who arrived in the last four years should be deported. This most cleanly describes my views as well - I really didn't care too much about the situation until the Biden Administration began drawing people in by the millions and stopped deporting people with final orders of removal. Before then, I would have said the biggest change that needed to be made is expanding the immigration court system until every case can be processed within a year.

.44*.51 = 22% of US Adults. Plus 32% gets to 54% of Americans who think that at least criminal immigrants and those who arrived since Biden took office should be deported.

So if anything you were selling your position short. Or there might be some other data point you were looking at?

What percentage of support would you need to see before you would agree my point that, if you have a reasonable suspicion that someone committed a crime, (and a 1:4 or 1:2 likelihood should count as reasonable suspicion) it's perfectly fine and legal (as was recently confirmed by the SCOTUS in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) to take five minutes out of someone's day to ask some basic questions?

This is leaving aside the fact that most Americans answering this survey have no clue that pretty much all Illegal Immigrants, whether they came over the border or overstayed a visa, have committed criminal acts. Conduct related to “unlawful presence,” like eluding inspection, is a criminal misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on the second offense, and the two often go hand in hand. People who overstay visas are often committing crimes. For example: anyone who is here on a visa is required to notify DHS within 10 days of a change of address; failure to do so is a criminal misdemeanor. Those who stay in the country and work here without a visa are also usually committing crimes like document fraud, identity theft, or tax fraud to obtain employment and/or be paid under the table.

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 20hr ago

You said:

I do think the Trump administration would have initiated more investigations and likely secured more arrests.

I really don't think I strawmanned you, I was responding to this specific portion of your writing. If I misunderstood your argument, I apologize.

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 21hr ago

Or pick the largest junk and set everyone else's to that length.

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 22hr ago

I think those laws are based on crimes where you are far less likely to throw a stone and hit someone who should be arrested. There are only so many carjackers in the world, and most murders are from people close to the victim.

The percentage of people here who are committing a misdemeanor by illegal entry or by overstaying a visa and changing their address without notifying DHS is between 4 and 8%. These misdemeanors become felonies quickly by repeated offenses or stacking against other crimes often necessary to keep a low profile.

So just taking a random sample of the US, 1 in 12 will be here unlawfully.

However, the people here unlawfully are not randomly distributed. They are mostly not Western Europeans, for instance, while a large portion of the United States population still is Western European. They are mostly Mexican, Venezuelan, and Central American. Though the exact number is difficult to nail down, let's be generous and say 2/3s of the people here unlawfully are Hispanic.

Hispanic people make up approximately 20% of the US population. If 5% of the total US population is Hispanics here unlawfully, and Hispanics are 20% of the population total, the odds of any given Hispanic being here unlawfully is 1 in 4.

Now, most Hispanics are here lawfully. Some have family ties to the land well before the land was American. Of the Hispanics here lawfully, most speak very good English, having been raised in the United States or present for decades. Most have little to no accent.

Of the Hispanics here unlawfully, some actually have really good English! Some are DREAMERs. But people who only arrived recently do tend to keep a strong accent for a while.

I will try to give generous estimates. Let's say 50% of Hispanics with strong accents are also here unlawfully.

So if you have someone in the country who is Hispanic and has a strong accent, there is a 1 in 2 chance of them being here unlawfully.

There are ways to make the odds even better. For example, there are certain places someone here unlawfully is likely to be. Using this knowledge, the odds are greater than half that a given Hispanic with an accent is here unlawfully.

If a police officer has located someone who has a more-than-half likelihood of having committed a specific crime, wouldn't you want that officer to at least question that person? Especially if you already have a database of many of the people who have committed that crime, and it's just a matter of checking if that person is on the database.

It's not at all like questioning every black man for a murder, when the majority of black men are not murderers. The only reason to compare them is because the magnitude of the problem is left out in these conversations.

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 1d ago

Tell us honestly, if you were out shopping for groceries, for instance, and a police officer stopped you and said something like, "We are looking for a group of car jackers, some of whom match your description. Give me your license so I can make sure you're not one of them."

Would you freak out, try to ignore the police, tell them they have no right to do this? Complain about racial profiling because someone who appears like you will also likely share your race, so race is likely one of the criteria they used to single you out?

Or would you maybe get a little tense, a little nervous that there will be a paperwork mistake, but give them your license, get cleared, and then move on with your day?

If this happened once a year, do you think people would be sympathetic if you complained or would it just seem like a funny story?

If it happened every day, I would see where there is room for complaint.

I have yet to see a story like, "I get stopped every day for my ID." I don't think I've seen someone complain about it happening to them more than twice.

I think the real complaint is, "Some of these people have removal orders they've been ignoring and are going to show up on the database as such when asked for ID."

With a side helping of, "Leftists have terrified minorities into thinking that ICE is going to lock everyone up on the basis of skin color, they're not even checking if you are a citizen or have an unexpired visa. This makes what should be a routine, quick, painless check into something horrifically scary. We will ignore that it's our fearmongering that made it so."

8

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 1d ago

I think the fear is that, if these witnesses do not show up, then the criminal they would have been testifying against will walk free, and potentially an American Citizen will be denied justice.

The problem is, we have let the problem go unaddressed for so long, no matter what we do there will be sympathetic people who have less than optimal outcomes. In aggregate I believe enforcing immigration law is the best action to take. There will be cases on the margin where someone gets screwed, but largely because of how big the problem got and how little we did to address it for decades, until it ballooned up past the point we could not ignore during Biden.

10

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 1d ago

The assumption that Trump would have arrested everyone harassing ICE off-duty is based on your assumptions of Trump's character and the Federal Government's capabilities. Perhaps your assumptions are incorrect here.

There are many people harassing off-duty ICE (does it count when they're at a hotel or is that on-duty? Many hotels have had to close in Minneapolis due to the violence.) There are many people harassing people presumed to be off-duty ICE. The evidence is everywhere. Very few have been arrested, because arrests would depend a lot on local cooperation, which has not been forthcoming.

Videos/evidence of these things:

https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/2016846295923642848?s=20

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2013178366988345447?s=20

https://x.com/chiIIum/status/2012706153491235169?s=20

https://x.com/Osint613/status/2012780234861326413?s=20

https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2012610307663802819?s=20

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2011285612402512085?s=20

https://x.com/WellsJorda89710/status/2012413904199061930?s=20

https://x.com/CBPCommissioner/status/2015847860537893029?s=20

https://x.com/camhigby/status/2017764065154895968?s=20

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2018386424739905888?s=20

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2018111147237425556?s=20

12

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 1d ago

Police do not only arrest people who have already been found guilty in a court of law. There would be no criminal justice system if that were the case.

Here is a video of local police responding to a car crash. They detain a witness for the sole reason that he refused to leave his name and contact information with police, then keep him detained under suspicion until they get a clear picture of the accident.

ICE isn't arresting people for "being 'likely' to commit a crime." They are arresting people for being likely *to have already committed a crime." We know millions of people have committed the misdimeanor of coming into the country unlawfully. The crime has been committed, they are investigating and making a suspect list.

16

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 2d ago

There is also "OR with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainee of any person" in the law.

5

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 2d ago

"This person is too stupid to realize their actions could cause grievous bodily harm" seems like a weird reason to excuse someone from wrong doing and let them wander around free. It only seems just if they are otherwise institutionalized.

18

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 3d ago

I was going off of: https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life

Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).

Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).

Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.

This is for turn-based rounds. Simultaneous rounds “win-stay, lose-shift" wins. Does our electoral system more closely match turn-based or simultaneous?

3

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 3d ago · Edited 2d ago

Democratic leadership is not doing too well in the truth department either. Walsh said ICE is not law enforcement. for instance.

But detaining someone on the suspicion of them being an illegal immigrant seems to be a-ok only if the arestee is not a citizen.

No, looks like you fell for misinformation as well. Unless by a-ok you mean some value judgement outside the law. Congress explicitly gave ICE the power (without warrant) "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;" (8 USC 1357) (emphasis mine)

We have a very recent Supreme Court case (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) that helps us understand both what ICE's operating parameters are and that they are within the bounds of law. Someone can be detained by ICE on reasonable suspicion that they are violating immigration law or is involved with a violation of U.S. immigration law by another person. If there is reasonable suspicion, ICE is allowed to stop someone, ask them for ID, if they do not have ID on their person then ask for identifying details like name and address, and run them through a database to try to narrow down their immigration status.

For an example of reasonable suspicion, there was an incident where someone (let's call him Bob) saw another person with an ignored final removal order being arrested by ICE. Bob fled in another direction. Fleeing from officers creates reasonable suspicion! Perhaps that is what Bob intended. The ICE officers left the person they were there for and chased after him. He was arrested, refused to answer questions, and was taken into custody so that his identity could be determined. Bob is a US citizen, but taking him into custody seems reasonable and A-ok to me!

ICE’s policy is that no one can be lawfully taken into custody, or even questioned, on the basis of skin color. Ethnicity is never on it's own a sufficient basis for probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. However, several factors when taken together can create reasonable suspicion:

the types of job they worked (people unlawfully present disproportionately work in certain kinds of jobs)
presence at particular locations (people unlawfully present are disproportionately found at certain places, like car washes and construction sites)
language and accent (people unlawfully present disproportionately speak languages other than English, or speak English with a heavy accent)
apparent race or ethnicity.

The Supreme Court agreed with ICE on this assessment that in combination (though not in isolation) these factors can create reasonable basis for a Terry Stop.

Refusing to cooperate with a Terry Stop, refusing to roll down your window, show ID, get out of the vehicle when asked, etc, are all things that will get you arrested, whether it is ICE or your local beat cop who's trying to talk with you.

It's normal to see the underclass act badly when stopped by the police. What's been weird is seeing middle-aged PMC respond to reasonable police requests like someone caught driving on a weed binge. The only reason they are acting like that is because they've been told it's right and just to act like that.

Edit: For example, here is a video of local police responding to a car crash. They detain a witness for the sole reason that he refused to leave his name and contact information with police. This is actually really normal! Refusing to identify yourself to law enforcement, even in absence of suspicion of committing a crime, will get you detained.

14

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 3d ago · Edited 3d ago

The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is. MN ICE is perhaps a suitable tat for Biden's tit of purposefully bringing in millions of immigrants. But it has to have a limit and then Conservatives need to try cooperation.

Edit: Blue hairs grew up and are now acting like insurrection Karens with law enforcement. Sorry if it's not the right descriptor, but I think you understood what I meant anyways.

6

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 4d ago

all these things have a savor of savage and hasty simplification, which may, in many individuals, correspond to an honest indignation or even idealism, but which, when taken altogether, give an uncomfortable impression of wild men who have merely grown weary of the complexity that we call civilization."

Honestly, this resonated with me in the sense that a lot of left-leaning people I've talked with are OK with:

Rioting and disturbing the peace
Lying about the law to make people believe that ICE is breaking it (specifically that ICE needs to show random people warrants, ICE cannot arrest a US Citizen, ICE cannot detain an immigrant while their immigration case is being processed.)
Saying that if the law might be popular but only because people do not understand it and also Democracy can be morally wrong sometimes and so those who know better need to act outside the law.
If the law is bad then the option is not to change it because changing it will take too long and people are being Abducted Now!
Saying anarchism is looking appealing.

Meanwhile, someone on the left could make their own list of what right-leaning people are doing:

Enforcing the law in a reckless manner
Lying about the law to make themselves look better (in the case of Pretti and bringing a gun to a protest.)
Trying to remove Birthright citizenship out of fear that the electorate will not prefer their policies if Birthright citizenship continues.
Saying we're in a cold Civil War.

I think our nation is broken and I'm sad about it. I do not know how to restore a sense of common brotherhood between the blue haired Karen and the MAGA HVAC repair guy. If we're lucky we'll get attacked from the outside and band together against a common threat. If we're unlucky I think we'll just struggle against each other until one group loses all hope of pretense to power.

12

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 4d ago

But in this scenario there are homeowners who are losers here - people with houses that are in the bottom 10% of price due to location and size. Their home "values" increased over the last decade, but they are unable to leverage that money towards liquid cash as easily.

7

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 7d ago

I guess everyone in Minnesota who is in a category the State will refuse to protect should just leave Minnesota.

I don't know what other remedies our system has.

12

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 7d ago

Disrupting a church service is not exactly terrorism, since there was no actual violence used.

I think the FBI affidavit is important to review before going into the discussion.

First, the "protestors" were blocking people in, keeping them from leaving or from getting to their children who had been taking to another area for childcare.

Victim 4 noted after the protest began, approximately fifty members of the congregation were stuck towards the front of the church. Victim 4 informed agents the aisles are already narrow to begin with, and the agitators who occupied the center of the sanctuary made it nearly impossible for parishioners to get out and leave.

Victim 4 informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. Victim 4 recalled one agitator was threatening, aggressive, and intimidating towards parishioners. Additionally, this agitator was screaming and getting in people's faces, to include women and young children. This agitator continued to scream in the faces of young children while they were crying.

Just, you know, some light "preventing parents from caring for their small children." Really, could happen to any honest protestor.

One of the church goers fled out a side door, tripped, and broke her arm. Is that the fault of the protestors? Kinda, if they hadn't scared her she wouldn't have ran so quickly.

Victim 6 was scared the agitators were not going to let people leave and that they were going to harm victim 1's family for harboring victim 1. Victim 6 later stated protesters followed and surrounded them in their car and would not let them leave.

Again with the not letting people leave thing. What elements need to be present for this to be kidnapping? Or endangering children?

25

Context

OracleOutlook Fiat justitia ruat caelum 7d ago

Before all the new information.

2

Context