UwU
18d ago
let me ask, is this actually your point of view?
It is my point of view.
The NYT poll suggested deportation approval was 50% vs 47% and ICE approval was 63% vs 37%. Furthermore there was a question about ICE tactics which got 61%/26%/11% for gone-too-far/just-right/not-far-enough.
Put together it means that deportations are still popular but ICE tactics are not. There's about 11-13% of the electorate who holds these two opinions simultaneously. It's not everyone, but it is certainly sizable enough to swing elections. This poll was conducted prior to the most recent shooting, so if anything I'd expect even less support for ICE tactics now.
UwU
20d ago
The only restraining principle is the expense.
Yes and that is the key here isn't it? There's no infinite amount of federal agents available, and there's clearly diminishing returns dependent on the amount of illegal immigrants actually in the city and the number of federal agents present. Add on the current volatile circumstances, I hardly think this is the most efficient strategy if your goal is to maximize deportations. I would expect any good defense to actually address the part that Minneapolis is singled out compared to the other cities, which was the main point of the comment you initially replied to.
Does it matter to this conversation that deportations in the abstract is popular? The whole point is how they are being done. If the administration maintains their current tactics and ICE continues to shoot a US citizen every couple of weeks, would you say it would improve their electoral chances or lessen them?
UwU
20d ago
This defense is a bit thin since you can use it to justify an uncapped amount of federal agents as long as there's non-zero illegal immigrants in Minneapolis, which applies to basically every American city.
A much more reasonable defense is that they are doing it as a punitive expedition to make Minneapolis an example so other sanctuary cities start to less resistant to federal authority on immigration. However, it is still a punitive expedition. And after these shootings, it has clearly failed, because I don't see how it will be effective at persuading other liberal strongholds to cooperate with ICE rather than digging in their heels and be even more resistant.
Indeed a strange statement. I'm seeing people on social media claim that ICE had already disarmed the victim, holster and all, prior to the shooting, and I'm also seeing people claim that he was pulling his gun and the first few gunshots were from him, which lead to his death. As far as I'm aware there's no good evidence for either of these interpretations. But judging by the fact the government is merely claiming that "he had a weapon", rather than "he fired at the officers", I'm inclined to believe it's a bad shoot and this is damage control.
EDIT: With more evidence coming out it looks like they DID disarm the guy before shooting.
It's just posts becoming popular and then getting on /r/all or /r/popular which makes even more redditors upvote it.
More options
Context Copy link