anon_
5hr ago
Politically moderate and factually moderate are different things.
And yes, of course the median voter has a veto, that’s representative government. The point was doing it without losing the median voter and without getting outsmarted by your opponents.
Of course a party or a politician can decide to just go balls out for a few years and get whalloped. But it won’t lead to a long term accomplishments.
anon_
1d ago
The vast majority of arrests and deportations around the country are conducted peacefully, with fewer officers, and without any bright lights or fanfare. ICE are moderate and reasonable in all places except where they face immoderate and unreasonable opposition.
That seems like a far more principled defense than actually justifying some of this stuff.
Instead you have Homan and Bovino talking out of their asses.
anon_
1d ago
The problem is that if you want to actually get through the ~8M folks that need to be deported at 500-700K a year, you need a durable political coalition that can actually keep it up for 10-12 years.
That won't happen if you piss off enough of the marginal bleeding hearts that there is no way to do it. A paroxysm of 4 years of Trump's ICE (which he's already pulled back on, less than 9 months out) won't actually accomplish your goal.
People seem to forget that outsmarting your opponents is an allowed move in politics. Try harder not to be outsmarted.
And we’re not going to give them all trials, they’re here illegally, deportation is their due process.
Actually I think the Right could lean in to due process as a meme here -- especially with regards to folks who have had asylum denied, had their chance to appeal to the BIA and already ignored a final order of removal.
And yes, for those folks, deportation is the right next step. For those at other stages, they deserve some notice and a solid (5 days? 10 days?) chance to self-deport.
anon_
1d ago
I want to present the claim that what ICE is doing in Minneapolis is inefficient at its stated goals, broadly unlawful/lawless, and disproportionate.
All of this is necessary because of Sanctuary Policies that the Police Don't Co-Operate with DHS, so ICE Must Go Looking For The Criminals. Why don't they hang out outside the county jail and question people on their immigration status there on their release? Why don't they hang out at the courthouse
Indeed, so one can believe the first statement (or at least for the purposes here, leave it aside), and believe that your (a) explains the game-theoretic place that got us here. Immigration enforcement could largely be carried out by local/state law enforcement, they don't need to do a whole lot beyond sharing fingerprints with DHS (an Obama initiative).
In this game, the next move will be for those jurisdictions not to arrest illegals (already the case in CA) and, when possible, to allow them to attend court via Zoom (already in MN/IL/NY). That's why "how did we get here" is important.
engaged citizenry that ten thousand people decided to go out in extremely cold temperatures and make their voices heard, peacefully.
So too did the thousands of people in Birmingham and Montgomery that went out to oppose desegregation. And insofar as they weren't obstructing kids from attending school, that's their prerogative, but it doesn't make them right. Indeed, the whole point of free expression is that they get to express themselves regardless of the correctness of their position.
And to the extent that "voices heard" is an organization intent on obstructing law enforcement or aiding & abetting criminals, then we should do what JFK did in the 60s: send in the 101^st airborne.
anon_
4d ago
It is not dereliction of duty. That is a military standard that applies to the military. And it would be impossible to prove he knew in advance that he would behave like a coward once he faced real danger.
Right, which is why we need deterrence of punishment after the fact.
A town can only afford to hire so many police officers (and firefighters), they should be assured that the ones they hire will do the job.
anon_
4d ago
at least three other officers had arrived seconds later and also failed to stop the gunman
We should try this for other crimes. Your honor, there were 3 other guys also (robbing the bank|rioting against ICE|storming the capitol)!
anon_
7d ago
Is this exculpatory evidence? I don't think so. If it were, then every criminal who starts running from the police "because they got scared" would then have, at the very least, a get-out-of-evading-arrest-free card to play at all times.
Not in the hindsight sense. The standard is whether a reasonable person observing what the officer did and within the time the officer had to evaluate would have perceived it as a threat. If that reasonable person would see that Good was trying to get away, then it wouldn't be legal to shoot her.
Non-compliance with law enforcement orders has to remain chargeable.
Chargeable, yes. Arrestable, absolutely. Deadly force, not without more.
anon_
9d ago
Absolutely agreed.
But it is also lawful to protest a police action without obstructing it. I’m sure there are examples of protests in Minnesota that are & aren’t.
anon_
9d ago
Seems like a strong case that this is part of a conspiracy and not protected (see 2(b) of the article) -- at least on that fact pattern.
Then again, if some kids in the hood do whistle whenever the cops pulled up and some other guy does buy them fast food, it's gonna be hard to actually make that case.
The other part wrestled with in the general case is when there is dual-use speech, which again, depends on the fact pattern.
anon_
9d ago
OTOH blinking your brights to warn of an oncoming speed trap is.
So much here depends on the analogy chosen.
anon_
10d ago
Obviously we need someone more upright and trustworthy. I thereby humbly accept this burden as my duty.
anon_
10d ago
Europe needs to get a good kicking to jolt it out of being the USA's little bitch
May I ask that you familiarize yourself with the concept of BATNA.
anon_
10d ago
The very next sentence is
But the Court didn't explain the scope of this exception-it spent just a few sentences on the subject-and in particular didn't discuss whether the exception reached beyond threats to national security. And the following year, the Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that knowingly publishing the names of people who weren't complying with a boycott was constitutionally protected, even though some people who weren't observing the boycott had been violently attacked, and the publication clearly could facilitate such attacks.
I agree, the caselaw is complex and there isn't a definitive ruling one way or the other. In particular, I don't think Brandenburg is deciding here, it's just an unresolved question.
The European payment system works fine because it appropriated the property of US multinational firms.
Americans could have very cheap Louis Vuitton handbags if we mandated that they license it to American manufacturers for a $10/piece licensing fee.
anon_
10d ago
In your example Alice isn't inciting lawless action, the murderer is going to try to escape regardless. At best, she's aiding or facilitating it, which isn't squarely covered by Brandenburg.
If you care to read the section aptly titled The Existing Crime-Facilitating Speech Cases is a fairly comprehensive survey of cases on it.
anon_
10d ago
There's a review on the history of such speech in section 2(a) of this paper.
anon_
10d ago
You could take this even further:
Anti-(good-ICE)-true-positive: Protesters harassing ICE while they are conducting an operation lawfully
Anti-(bad-ICE)-true-positive: Protesters harassing ICE while they are conducting an operation unlawfully
Unless ICE has a 100% conduct-the-operation-lawfully rate, at least some of these will A(BI)TPs.
anon_
10d ago
Oh, sure, you might catch and deport a few foreigners who overstayed their student visa, but generally the government is unlikely to have a complete list of all the people who illegally crossed the border and try their best to stay out of the governments databases.
I think the bulk of it is the backlog of individuals with final orders of removal that are still here.
To my knowledge, there is no rule that you can not deport someone if you had arrested them without sufficient probable cause.
This is actually being litigated right now. I suspect you are right about where the law end up.
anon_
10d ago
You wrote:
The irony of it all is that this is what anti ICE groups are accusing ICE of doing. Going to places and harassing people based off of stereotypes without any legal authority to do so. Demanding evidence to prove that someone belongs here.
I'm sure ICE has done exactly this -- going to a place they suspect removable aliens to be present and demanding evidence.
I'm sure ICE has other operations where they target specific removable aliens on which they have prior information too.
Seems very similar unless you are really resting the justifiability argument cited.
anon_
10d ago
It’s unlikely we would would see worse transaction processing unlike housing where price fixing leads to shitty housing.
We would surely see reduced rewards, reduced perks and reduced consumer protection (e.g. worse chargeback terms), worse settlement terms (today it's ~daily, you'd see net-90).
The price of processing cash is not what the interchange should be. That basically assumes the CC company can take 100% of the surplus which implies a monopoly exists.
The price of a good is determined in part by the price/substitutability of substitute goods. This is a feature, not a bug.
It's not that they should be exactly equal, but the cost of processing cash is a good marker by which to understand the value provided by interchange to the merchant.
Moreover, the counterfactual here isn't giving any surplus to the merchant anyway -- in the absence of credit card companies they would process cash and be approximately equally well off.
anon_
10d ago
That set up a twitter folly of the high rate people are subsidizing low rate people with rewards backed by a fed paper.
I see in your edit that you understand that rewards are funded almost exclusively by interchange. So what does limiting the rate/fees accomplish?
Then the store I go to doesn’t pay a processing fee. So they cut prices. And it probably saves me more money than getting 2% cash back.
Well sure, if you essentially appropriate the credit card networks and force them to operate it nearly for free, then we can all enjoy the enormous benefits it confers without paying the owners. This is not a sustainable equilibrium though.
Also, you should look up or ask your most trusted LLM what the average cost to a retail business is for accepting/processing cash. The interchange for electronic payment (plus the benefits of immediate settlement) is competitive to the labor/logistic overhead of processing cash, especially for smaller businesses.
anon_
10d ago
I agree that certain false positive rates are acceptable when enforcing the law (up to but not past the point of conviction/sentencing at least). I disagree that certain false positive rates are acceptable when forming a mob. This is not hypocrisy.
In that case it doesn't matter if the mob is harassing or assaulting ICE or non-ICE folks.
Which implies that the examples you gave are not relevant.
anon_
24d ago
Does the accusation of character-assassination necessarily require falsehood? Specifically, if the film portrayed the non-famous 13YO as shithead but was reasonably accurate, does that still count in your mind?
We've gone around and around and I still can't understand what are the necessary and sufficient conditions that you have in mind.
I feel like those are the least sympathetic such cases. People that were ordered removed by the Obama administration and just refused, well, even Obama was in favor of deporting them (and his clip of 3M over his 8 years is comparable enough to Trump's run rate of 500K a year).
The most sympathetic cases are something like "immigrant goes to ICE appointment, has existing status yanked and is arrested right on the spot".
Granted some large proportion of those existing legal statuses were Biden-era bullshit, I'm not defending that they were justified, but a lot of those folks did have a valid-on-paper withholding of removal. And while the left doesn't acknowledge it as legitimate, the same law that makes it possible for the Biden AG to grant WoR also justified the Trump AG revoking WoR on the spot. Still, it's bad look as compared to giving them notice that WoR is being revoked, a chance to try the process and appeal through the BIA and ultimate removal if they ignore their legal duty to leave.
More options
Context Copy link