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 -
There's a million ways he could have implemented the ICE program completely ineffectually. This way is delivering at least some level of results, and there is no reason to believe that any other plausible method would deliver better results.
This has been a bipartisan pattern throughout the last decade, pretty clearly as a result of collapsing federal authority. Gun laws are routinely enforced this way, and have been for decades. COVID mandates were very clearly enforced this way. Trans ideology was enforced this way.
What job requirements would seem more appropriate to you? Can you point to some examples of how low recruiting standards have resulted in bad outcomes?
As you say, "An accusation must be validated by a supposedly neutral arbiter." I disagree that Democrats are justified in such a belief. On the other hand, I can point to recent cases where federal agents promulgated official orders to violate their core mission to better discriminate against Reds.
I think you overestimate the sociopolitical "pull" maintained by the courts, including the Supreme Court. We are more than a decade into lesser courts, and local, state and federal officials operating in open defiance of rulings they disagree with.
The fact is that systems of law do not constrain human will, individually or collectively. "Treason" is a word invented by humans, applied by humans, and assessed by humans. If the argument here is that Democrat local and state officials probably won't be charged, convicted and sentenced for Treason for the things they're doing right now, I'll readily agree with you. But the fight that is happening right now is more likely to grow than to gutter out, and there does not appear to be an obvious point where it will stop. Blue Tribe has acted for decades as though it is above the law, and it turns out those actions have consequences.
It is certainly true that Trump started raising the temperature, if one carefully defines "raising the temperature" to exclude everything Democrats have done to raise the temperature over the last decade or more. Trump is essentially a copy of Bill Clinton. His cabinet and associates are full of former high-tier democrat figures. His policies used to be entirely normal within the democratic party as recently as a decade ago. Red Tribe has slaughtered numerous sacred cows to assemble their current coalition, essentially capitulating to broad swathes of the Democratic policy platform. The democrats have only moved further left in response, and have made both unconscionable government repression and large-scale, organized lawless violence core aspects of their political program.
The democratic party announced their intention to use mass immigration to secure a permanent majority Twenty years ago. It turns out that this was not quite the silver bullet they expected, but Reds are assessing future cooperation in terms of intentions, not results, and Blues have made it abundantly clear that further cooperation with them leads to no livable future for Reds.
Reds are not going to back down because there is no retreat available to us. We decline to be reduced to second-class citizens in our native country. We decline to be victimized by the full power of the Federal Government. We decline to uphold rules that are enforced only to our detriment and never to our benefit. We decline to maintain systems that exist only to oppress us.
No justice, no peace.
This is factually false. E-verify is a thing. If you want to stop people who are not authorized to work from working, then mandating that employers actually check that their employees are authorized to work for them seems like an obvious step to take.
If you haven't even taken the step of mandating the use of e-verify for all employers, I don't believe you when you say "but we have to disappear people, it's the only strategy that could possibly work".
Nobody is getting disappeared. Everyone apprehended can be looked up on a public website. https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search
Nobody, you say?
So ICE arrested someone, detained him for 37 days in the hospital under armed guard, did not charge him with anything, denied him legal counsel, and used a pseudonym when registering him in the locator. That sure sounds to me like "ICE disappeared that guy".
If he was in the hospital ICE would have gone to a judge and obtained a hospital order wherein they explained to the judge why he could not be brought to court for his initial court appearance. The judge then changed his/her mind after this situation continued for such a long time that he/she deemed it unreasonable given the state of the case. Your ignorance of criminal law has allowed you to be propagandized.
You wanna bring receipts on that for this case? I can bring them for the proceedings leading up to the TRO, and I see nothing like that mentioned.
Well all the documents appear to be sealed....
Where are you seeing the sealed documents? I see some paywalled ones that haven't yet been added to RECAP but nothing before Sep 30. Am I looking in the wrong place?
The rest of the case is on PACER, there are several unavailable documents that, most importantly, stake out ICE's position, as well as the order granting the TRO.
However, if I take the judge's written orders at face value I think the original article was not as misleading as I had anticipated.
Basically, I thought the article was describing the normal application of 18 USC 3142(d) (and analogous provisions in the immigration law, particularly 8 USC 1226) and the associated rules of criminal procedure (such as rule 43) where a detention-eligible defendant is physically unable to be brought to court, in this case because he is hospitalized.
Instead, what appears to have happened is a very odd plan by ICE. I don't know why they did what they did, whether it was just laziness, forgetfulness, pants on head level stupid, or an intentional ploy to generate a test case.
Again, in a normal case, you'd file charges or file for removal and then go to a judge and say, basically, "hey we know the statute says we have to release this guy in 10 days, or have a detention hearing. We can't have a detention hearing because he can't come to court because he's in the hospital." Then the judge sets it over a few days or weeks depending on the diagnosis and then you have the hearing once they can come to court. ICE did not do this. Why is the question, because there were entirely well worn legal ways to keep this fellow detained.
Arguments for laziness/forgetfulness: This case is in California. ICE in California is essentially blockaded within its own facilities. To actually fingerprint and process the defendant requires them to get him into the facility or a similar facility (which local municipalities won't let them use), and then he'd have to be taken back to the hospital. This is a lot of work for essentially finalizing what in their mind is a formality. Once he's fingerprinted they know they have the right guy, and by the way he's in the hospital so he's not "really" being detained in that he can't go somewhere he needs to be.
Arguments for pants on head: This appears to be pants on head stupid. They could just file the right paperwork for a removal proceeding and have mooted this entire habeas petition.
Arguments for intentional test case: The petition itself appears to be highly focused on, and critical of what they call the DHS “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission,” which according to the petition "claims that all noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection shall now be deemed “applicants for admission” and subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)." This is a new interpretation of the law that ICE and DHS appear to be intent to apply to this fellow. It is easy to see why, this new interpretation, if adopted by courts, would make their lives much easier. It also apparently has many other "test cases" pending which largely are being pursued in places like California that have mostly hostile judges, so DHS has fared quite poorly (at least according to the petition). On this last point, I think the petitioners really have a point. That new guidance is likely to fall and never be reviewed by SCOTUS because it is pretty dumb.
So, that is basically what I am able to glean from the very incomplete record in the case, because most of the documents are not available even to someone with a standard PACER account that normally gets you all the filings in most cases.
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
More options
Context Copy link