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 -
Oh, right, forgot about that. Let me change my estimate to 15%. To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer.
Seriously, I don't think an error rate much below 1% for this type of thing is a reasonable estimate.
And errors HAVE occurred. Abrego Garcia got sent to El Salvador despite a ruling saying he shouldn't be. A citizen spent 3 days in immigration detention after a raid. You really think the government is going to have a negligible error rate and never detain the wrong Kim Sung Park?
I notice both you and the article you referring to use a very peculiar way of describing it. They never say he was accused of being an illegal immigrant or sent to detention center for illegal immigrants. They only say he was arrested "during" or "after" raid. And he was working as a security guard at a company employing a lot of illegals, where a huge clash between ICE agents and pro-open-border rioters happened. Want to hear my guess of what happened? He tried to be a big tough man and mess with law enforcement. He got arrested and spent a weekend in a jail downtown LA. Nobody ever thought he is an illegal immigrant - but guess what, being a citizen does not allow you to mess with law enforcement without consequences. At least not that time.
I can not prove this - because the article you quoted, in full agreement with modern journalistic standards, neglected to ask the other side for a comment. Other sources say he was "arrested on suspicion of assault" - but no charges were brought, likely because proving any of it in court would be tough, given the chaotic nature of the riots. It very well could be that they went overboard with detaining him for 3 days without access to attorney (most likely boring reason being it was a weekend) - if so, he has a valid claim against them, and would likely prevail in extracting some compensation (it's LA after all, pretty much every judge there would be his friend) - but it has absolutely nothing to do with ICE errors misidentifying citizens or legal workers as illegals. ICE never claimed he's an illegal. They detained him at the scene of a riot, and they may have acted ham-fistedly doing that - either because they were pissed by something he did, or because they were pissed in general by the riot - and in both cases they were wrong to deny him access to the attorney. I have heard about a number of cases like that over the years. They are infuriating and completely wrong, but they have nothing to do with immigration errors.
There's not really any information available aside from what Retes provided, since ICE hasn't commented at all on it.
A lot of people, when asked for example of when something happened, do not immediately reach for an example where there's no information available whether something happened or not, and present it as their example of something happening. Because if they do it, other people might conclude they really do not have any better examples.
I guess this report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/cannabis-farm-worker-in-california-dies-day-after-chaotic-federal-immigration-raid.html saying:
is just my hallucination? Or they lied claiming immigration officials told him that? Why, in your opinion, CNBC would lie about something like that, and what is your source for accusing them of lying in this case? How do you know ICE hasn't actually commented even though CNBC claims they did?
That same article also claims "Immigration officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment."
At some point according to this paywalled CNN article, DHS (in the person of assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin, not anyone from ICE) said the arrest was for "alleged assault".
So, the current theory is the DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin was lying and he wasn't actually arrested for suspicion of assault? Or you are ready to admin that your example has nothing to do with ICE errors and you are 0:2 as far as supporting your claims with evidence goes?
My theory is he was arrested because he was there and "suspicion of assault" was a post-facto invention to cover a bad arrest.
And no, regardless of this I am still right about Abrego Garcia; he was certainly initially deported to the wrong place.
There's a huge difference between somebody being a legal alien worker and being mistakenly deported as illegal and somebody being definitely an illegal with a final removal order who gets their lawyer to declare the entire Western hemisphere is itching to torture him, activist judges playing along because nobody can ever be deported no matter why, and ICE needing to find some country that is not on the list lawyers managed to push through. I mean, we have to follow the law, and that at times includes tolerating lawyer tricks that everybody knows are tricks, because that's the only way to make the process work at scale, but conflating these two situations is bullshit. There's nothing in common between Garcia - who is definitely illegal alien and no court doubts that - and some hypothetical situation where ICE thinks a legal alien or a citizen is illegal. These are two completely different things.
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
You are seriously claimin the case of Garcia is the case of legal immigrant who has been mistakenly deported because of data error? Or you just bringing him around because "ICE man bad"? If I were to defend the cause of less ICE enforcement, Garcia is not a good example for you. He's absolutely, without any doubt, an illegal immigrant and a criminal, and unless your goal is to prove "the open borderers would absolutely make no distinction and would demand not to deport anyone, in any case, for any reason, and all their insistence on due process is just a smoke screen to make law enforcement effectively impossible because they just don't want any immigration law enforced at all" - unless that's what you are about to prove, you should really not mention Garcia. He definitely is not an "error", and the only reason he is in the headlines is because Democrat open-borderers made him a showcase for blocking any deportation attempt, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Their current claim is it's impossible to deport him because the whole Western hemisphere is itching to imprison and torture him. This is just ridiculous.
No, I'm saying he was a case of someone mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to an ICE error. I'm not defending the cause of less ICE enforcement (In an ideal world I'd prefer something less harsh than we have now, but we probably need what we have now as a correction); I'm pointing out that increasing ICE scrutiny on people can cause serious problems for them even if those people are perfectly legal, because the scrutinizers can make errors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link