This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/04/17/u-s-born-man-held-for-ice-under-floridas-new-anti-immigration-law/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-born-citizen-detained-ice-immigration-florida-rcna201800
A Florida State Trooper claimed a natural born citizen admitted to entering the country illegally. Thankfully, his family was able to prove his citizenship to a state judge. Unfortunately, ICE requested Florida keep him in custody, for an as-yet not-public reason, and Florida has done so, despite the citizen not being charged with any state crime, other than an unenforceable statute against illegal immigrants entering Florida, of which he was already proven innocent, even if it were enforceable. He was later released, thankfully.
Any data on the rate of these sorts of things happening, in the past? Should or shouldn't this be worrying and why?
If anything this proves the system is favorable to people like him, or at least working as intended.
Florida's statute was ruled unenforceable, according to both articles. ICE should have flagged him at the border, but asking Florida to continue holding him solves nothing.
This is false. There is a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking Florida from enforcing the statute, but no ruling or judgement was made on the merits of the case.
I was hastily imprecise, but, for the duration of the TRO, I think it is reasonable to say that a TRO is a subtype of "ruled unenforceable" and/or that a TRO vs a ruling on the merits is a distinction without a difference, in discussing an applicable case.
The distinction is actually quite important. At this point in litigation, the law is still on the books and fully valid and enforceable. The only obligation coming from the court order applies to the defendants, and they are temporarily restrained from enforcing this law. Anyone else involved in the legal process in unaffected.
In this sort of suit, assuming things go in favor of the plaintiffs, the judge will generally also enter declaratory relief if requested, which sets precedent that the law is unconstitutional according to US courts. At that point, police trying to enforce the law need to start watching their backs, because enforcing a clearly unconstitutional law can be considered a wrongful arrest.
But at this point the court, from a legal perspective, is still leaving it open as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional. So the QI shield on the officers will likely not be broken. And as non-parties to the lawsuit, the police have no worries of being held in contempt.
How does that apply to the individuals in this case?
They can cite the TRO as persuasive authority when arguing their case charges should be dismissed. Not having read it, I don't have any conclusions as to the coherence of the judges ruling on the TRO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link