site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   32753 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are two three angles:

Angle 1

Angle 2 [Twitter] [youtube]

Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)

This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.

Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.

I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.

The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”

People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.

This is exactly the kind of situation I was afraid of when ICE started running amok in states where they aren't wanted. I don't see how it can be a "narrative" when we point out that the thing happened that we warned would happen. Giving a paramilitary organization the power to make people disappear without due process was always a recipe for disaster. These ICE agents now appear to be so power-drunk that they are shooting unarmed white women, something normal cops very rarely do.

From what I can see in the video, the ICE agent chose to put himself in front of the SUV to block the woman from leaving. Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway. At that point, shooting her made no difference in his ability to survive the situation. Even if she were killed instantly by a headshot, the car would still have the same amount of momentum when it hit the officer. If anything, he could have gotten out of the way faster if he weren't dealing with his gun. I don't see any justification here.

  • -20

From what I can see in the video, the ICE agent chose to put himself in front of the SUV to block the woman from leaving. Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway.

If a police officer is trying to arrest you, then trying to run away is not "calling his bluff", it is "resisting arrest".

What the legal status of an ICE agent vis-à-vis law enforcement is, I don't know. It may be that they are not the same as cops and don't have the right to arrest anyone.

But you don't get to turn up at a protest, yell at people doing their jobs, then try to get away after drawing attention to yourself and make yourself a target for arrest, and claim "I was only trying to leave peacefully!"

What the legal status of an ICE agent vis-à-vis law enforcement is, I don't know. It may be that they are not the same as cops and don't have the right to arrest anyone.

They have the right, by statute, to arrest anyone committing a Federal offense in their presence. Blocking them from doing their duty is a Federal offense, and they had at least reasonable suspicion (which would be the appropriate legal standard to temporarily detain her, though an actual arrest would take more) she was doing that.

What federal offence was she committing?

Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees?

Do we actually know that? What specifically was she accused of doing?

What do you mean "do we actually know that"? She's dead, so I doubt they'll be pressing any charges, and I can't read minds over video, so I don't know what was going through their head when they decided to arrest her.

You asked what federal offense was she committing, and I gave you a link to a specific law that the situation seems to fall under under. Do you disagree? If not, how the hell was that an insufficient answer?

I don't disagree. I'm asking whether we know that that's what she was accused of and whether she was in fact doing that. I know a little more than I did at the time, and so I can see what the basis for that claim is, but I'm still not sure the extent to which that was actually confirmed.

More comments

Thankfully, someone made a helpful FAQ:

Q: Is ICE abducting people?
No. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency. It was established in 2003, but its predecessors date back to the Immigration Act of 1891. Every Congress has voted to fund ICE, every year, since its creation.
As a law enforcement agency, ICE has the authority to detain and arrest people for legitimate law enforcement purposes, if consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Q: Wait, is entering the country illegally a crime? I thought it was just a civil offense, like a traffic ticket.
Illegal entry into the United States is a federal offense under 8 USC 1325, carrying a maximum prison sentence of up to six months on the first offense (higher on subsequent offenses). That makes it a Class B misdemeanor (18 USC 3559), which means it is alternatively punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 plus an additional civil penalty of up to $250. That’s quite a bit more than my worst traffic ticket.
ICE frequently declines to prosecute suspects under this statute, because it is a criminal charge that requires a jury trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all the bells and whistles. It’s much easier (and cheaper) to just send them home. Basically, ICE is willing to pretend a foreigner ended up in America by some elaborate and hilarious mistake (“Whoopsie! Musta takin’ a wrong turn at Albuquerque!”), because ICE thinks it’s better to just send people home instead of punishing them plus sending them home.
That last part seems to be where people get the idea that it’s all just a civil offense. ICE frequently shuts its eyes to the criminal offense because it’s too much of a bother. Illegal entry is a civil offense only as an act of mercy.
Even then, the U.S. prosecutes this crime tens of thousands of times every year.
(That said, worth noting: overstaying a visa is not a crime. However, ICE can still remove anyone who overstays a visa from the country.)

Q: Wow. Oof. Alright. What happens once someone is in removal proceedings?
In a removal proceeding, the individual is brought, “without unnecessary delay,” before a federal official called an “immigration judge” (not a real judge) whose job is to hear ICE’s evidence, the suspect’s defense, and issue a ruling. ICE can arrest and initiate removal proceedings with relatively little evidence (probable cause), but, by this hearing stage, ICE must show proof (clear and convincing evidence) that the individual is not legally present in the United States.
If this federal official agrees with ICE, he issues an order of removal. The suspect may appeal this decision until it gets to a real judge, and can potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court. Once appeals are exhausted, the order becomes final and ICE may return the individual to his nation of citizenship, or to another nation that agrees to take him.

Q: Can ICE arrest anyone else?
Congress has granted ICE broad authority to arrest people, including citizens, if ICE has probable cause to believe they have committed other crimes, especially crimes committed in the presence of ICE officers. (8 USC 1357(5))
This is not an unusual power. Many law enforcement agencies can arrest someone, even without a warrant, especially when that person commits a crime in their presence. Of course, they still have to make a probable-cause showing to a judge within a couple of days, at most. This creates a ton of drama in police procedurals: “I know you think he’ll kill again, Higgins, but if you can’t convince a judge he’s the murderer in the next sixteen hours, the chief says we have to cut him loose!”
When ICE arrests a person for a non-immigration crime, those rules apply. They must have probable cause at the arrest. They must show that cause to a judge to continue holding that person for more than a very short while. They must find another law enforcement agency willing to deal with it and turn the person over to them, because ICE is only equipped to prosecute immigration violations. The accused must be convicted by a jury of her peers with proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be punished.

There is a ton of misinformation going around right now - that ICE has no real authority, that they can't touch a US Citizen, etc etc. It's all lies, and these lies possibly contributed to this woman's death. People are acting reckless with ICE because they don't think ICE can react the same way police can. They can and will.

Giving a paramilitary organization the power to make people disappear without due process

These histrionics are embarrassing.

A more neutral and truthful way to describe was ICE does is "arrest and deport illegal immigrants in accordance with existing law." They're not a paramilitary organization, they don't "disappear" people, and deportees get all the due process they are afforded by US law.

There have been many cases of illegal immigrants deported without a hearing to CECOT. They were not just deported to El Salvador and then once out of U.S. jurisdiction, imprisoned by the El Salvador government. The U.S. government arranged for them to be imprisoned there, in many cases without them even being citizens or residents of El Salvador.

It's hard to see how that does not violate the due process they are afforded by U.S. law. I don't think U.S. law allows people to be imprisoned without being charged and to be sentenced without

There have also been cases of legal immigrants held in detention camps for weeks without charge, without being given the opportunity to contact anyone, and without their families being told what happened to them. This has happened to tourists from Western countries.

This is a violation of habeas corpus and it violates the 14th amendment's due process clause.

They sometimes deport legal immigrants not in accordance with the law though.

Do they? How often? Based on what I see, it happens virtually never and leftists are just straight up lying about it for dramatic effect.

I don't know how often. But I've read about it a few times in the news.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/supreme-court-kilmar-abrego-garcia-1.7507521

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuelan-brother-deported-el-salvador-family-looking-rcna202279

There are more, but these are the two I remember best.

Neither of the cases you posted involved legal immigrants.

The first one had a court order preventing his deportation. The second one was invited into the country to attend an immigration hearing.

Neither was a legal immigrant.

More comments

Sure, I'll grant the premise. In that case you might say "deporting people in contravention of the law." They still aren't "disappearing" people.

If they arrest someone and don't bring them before a judge upon request as they are legally required to do and don't allow them to contact anyone on the outside and don't tell their family members where they are when asked, that is disappearing people, even if they eventually show up again.

Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway

It clearly wasn’t a bluff. As I said to another poster, “you’re allowed to obstruct and then flee as long as you’re reckless about it” is not a stable status quo. “Resisting arrest and ignoring the authority of detaining officers will get you shot”, is.

Complying with the police is how you stay alive and fleeing the scene / believing your car is “base” that you are allowed to plow forward is how you get shot. I can’t comprehend how it could be any other way. It’s the very belief that you are allowed to flee that is creating these outcomes.

I mean, I don't really agree with either person's decision-making here. I wouldn't have stepped in front of a running car as means of "stopping" it. I also wouldn't have tried to drive away if I were being arrested. And if I was standing in front of a moving car, I would prioritize jumping out of the way rather than shooting the driver, given how newtonian mechanics work.

So I agree that this woman's poor decisions got her shot, but that doesn't necessarily mean the officer is innocent. At best, he made a blunder that put himself in a position where he "needed" to use deadly force. But I think even that is debatable, because shooting the driver really has nothing to do with why he survived. He survived because he got out of the way of the car. He essentially shot the driver to stop her from escaping, which is questionable.

Not immediately executing someone for doing something is not the same as allowing them to do it.

How it could be any other way is that the police don't stand in front of vehicles to try to stop them from driving away and if they drive away against police orders, they can use a number of other safe techniques for pursuing and arresting them. Standing in front of cars and shooting the drivers is way down the list of preferred options for stopping vehicles and was easily avoidable in this situation.

  • -13

Okay. Let’s say they let her go and then go arrest her later at her house. Can they use force to arrest her there? What if she resists? What if she runs away? Is force / obstruction never permitted?

If it is permitted, then we need to explain why it was impermissible here

I didn't say force was impermissible here. I said killing her was impermissible. He wasn't trying to use force to arrest her. He shot her in order to kill her.

  • -10

On what grounds do you assert this? He shot to stop the threat. Once the threat was over, he stopped shooting. If he for example had waited a bit and then fired (unjustified) shots later, it would be a clear indicator of murderous intent, but that's not what happened. Once deadly force is authorized, you are allowed to keep using it until the threat has passed. Whatever consequences result from your use of force is not something to care about in the moment (although police are trained to render first aid once the suspect is in custody).

He shot to stop the threat.

That might have been the intent, but it was unreasonable because it could not have stopped the threat.

Once the threat was over, he stopped shooting.

No, he didn't. He fired two shots from the side of the car when he was completely clear of its path and it was moving away from him.

Once deadly force is authorized, you are allowed to keep using it until the threat has passed.

But it never was authorized and he continued after the threat was passed.

That might have been the intent, but it was unreasonable because it could not have stopped the threat.

Reasonableness applies to whether it was reasonable to believe that she was a deadly threat at that particular moment, and it is applied to whether the response was proportional (e.g. you cannot shoot someone who merely pepper-sprayed you), but at no point has it ever been applied to whether it could have stopped the threat. Even in a gun-on-gun situation it is not guaranteed that a gun will stop the threat. See my other reply here.

As for the rest, we are talking about a time frame of 1 second and humans are not expected to make perfect split-second decisions in such a short time frame. See my other reply here.

More comments

No, that effectively makes being in a car a get out of jail free card, especially if they haven't identified you yet, if the car is stolen, or the plates aren't visible etc. People learning to not be retards who try and run from cops (and who fight it in court if it's legitimately a wrongful arrest or whatever) is the only option that will lead to a stable society.

The car wasn't stolen and the plates weren't hidden. But even if they had been, why wouldn't it better for the police to simply pursue the car, stop it, pull her out, and arrest her normally? This is done all the time. What about that causes society to be unstable? It's not a get out of jail free card. It's just dealing with the situation in a way that is unnecessarily harmful to the suspect.

But even if they had been, why wouldn't it better for the police to simply pursue the car, stop it, pull her out, and arrest her normally?

Because car chases put the general public in danger. I'd much rather cops just blast people like this then let them put the public at risk.

Then they shouldn't do a car chase. They have many options. I think this is absurd trade off to make. The probability of someone getting hurt if they just arrest in a her a normal way is absolutely miniscule compared to the guaranteed harm of shooting her to death. Sure, if you put a sufficiently low value on the lives of people who are committing minor crimes, you can justify any level of police brutality, but that's not a reasonable basis on which to make an argument.

  • -10

The probability of someone getting hurt if they just arrest in a her a normal way is absolutely miniscule compared to the guaranteed harm of shooting her to death.

They were trying to arrest her in a normal way, she chose to flee instead. I really don't know how else to explain this to you. If we implemented your (and apparently many leftists') ideals for policing, the clearance rate for all crimes would drop somewhere between 90 to 99%. I'm not exaggerating here.

I'd be willing to let that happen, in exchange for citizens being allowed to blow away criminals without fear of prosecution. But I doubt that's a deal the left would be willing to make. So no, I'm not going to stand by and let the left undermine essential rules and tools for being able to maintain public order.

More comments

I like the idea of anarchotyranny in which distance running is the preferred method of determining guilt. Eliud Kipchoge would be the CEO of every company in a dicey situation and simply outrun white collar prosecution.

they can use a number of other safe techniques for pursuing and arresting them.

Getting in front of the car with a gun is obviously not safe, but nor is a potential high-speed chase or armed standoff at the suspect's destination, both of which often happen in scenarios where the guy gets away (obviously, the last one is much less likely from a liberal woman activist, but happens often enough with regular criminals). To forestall the inevitable, I'm reading your post as making a general point about police work, and I think that training and mindset are relevant to this because it's a matter of split-second decisions, and police work is not generally about dealing with nice liberal women, it's generally about dealing with questionably-sane and questionably-armed people with nothing to lose.

If the choice is between a potential armed standoff where someone might be killed (and almost certainly won't be) and definitely killing her, definitely killing her seems like the much worse choice. It has the added benefit of not forcing a split-second decision. Remember, we're talking about someone who it appears didn't do anything other than block a lane of traffic. Would an armed standoff have been worth doing to arrest her? I don't see why they can't charge her and just wait until there is a safe opportunity to arrest her. It doesn't have to be immediate. It doesn't have to be that day or that week. Nothing about this was so serious and urgent that anyone's life had to be put at risk. This wasn't a live shooter, it was a middle-aged woman blocking a lane on a quiet residential street.

OK, I see the second sentence wasn't clear enough for you. In these high-pressure situations, you should expect officers to be running off their training and previous experience, and their training is about minimizing risks to themselves and the public across a wide set of situations, many of which are more serious threats than some lady in a car (in fact, the officer had previously been hit and dragged by a suspect in a vehicle). I'll also note that, generally, and though it's off-frame in the shooting videos, a protest in the middle of a residential street generally makes it less "quiet" at the time.

Shooting her didn't minimize the risk to themselves and to the public. It increased it dramatically (evidenced by the fact that it resulted in someone's death). Police, including ICE, are specifically trained not to do this.

I didn't know there was any protest going on. I didn't see that in any of the videos. But that just strengthens my point which is that she was not really blocking traffic, making her offence less serious.

This is all a bit moot now that we have bodycam footage showing that the officer was walking across the front of the car to get to the other side, and the driver looked straight at the officer while accelerating. I assume that "don't ever walk across the front of a car in case they suddenly try to run you over/knock you out of the way" isn't something we can realistically ask of police.

Police, including ICE, are specifically trained not to do this.

What does this even mean? Police are trained not to shoot people? Yes, they're trained not to shoot people outside of particular circumstances where that person is posing a danger to others, which she was. Your previous argument was that the officer unnecessarily put her in a position to cause that danger.

But that just strengthens my point which is that she was not really blocking traffic, making her offence less serious.

The protest (news reporting on this seems terrible, but seems like a spontaneous thing in response to an ICE arrest) was down the road and she was blocking one of the routes out. It's not "blocking traffic" like some highway sit-in, it's trying to block the officers' route out of the protest. Standing in front of the car or not, they had every right and reason to either get her to move or to detain her on the spot.

More comments

Words have meanings. ICE is not a paramilitary, they're a law enforcement organization, regardless of whether you approve of the laws they enforce or the ways they enforce them. They are also not "making people disappear without due process." They are sending people back to their home countries. There is nothing illegal or evil about doing this, there is barely a square inch on the entire planet where you will not be deported if you do not have a citizenship or a valid visa. America is the only major country on the planet where people think that basic immigration enforcement is evil.

Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway.

What you are describing is called "attempted murder of a police officer" and it's kind of a big deal. People are allowed to try to prevent their own murder. Whether or not you, in hindsight, from the comfort of your keyboard, are able to see a way that the outcome could have been different, does not make it less legally justified because the law in its wisdom does not require the victims of crimes to be omniscient when they are deciding how to defend themselves.

They are also not "making people disappear without due process." They are sending people back to their home countries. (…) America is the only major country on the planet where people think that basic immigration enforcement is evil.

This strikes me as a motte and bailey - what does "basic immigration enforcement" mean? I don't object to deporting people. I object to grabbing them off the streets without warning. It's the difference between serving an eviction notice to a tenant-turned-squatter, and physically throwing them out without even letting them grab their stuff. The latter is inhumane behavior even in cases where a normal eviction notice would be legitimate and justified.

Now, maybe you want to argue that illegals are too good at evading detection, so that if immigration officers simply presented them with an order to leave within 10 days, they'd simply skip town while staying in the country - making immediate arrest the only viable recourse. Last time I got into this on this forum, we got quite deep in the weeds of this question. But even if I were to grant that the current circumstances demand these extraordinary measures, extraordinary measures is what they are, and describing them as "making people disappear" is not an unfair characterization.

The scope of the issue at this point is essentially intractable. The 'brutality' of ICE is partly a calculated effort to change the vibe enough to encourage more self-deportation of illegal immigrants.

I live in a SEA country with roughly 20-30% of the population allegedly made of illegal immigrants from neighboring poorer countries. I see immigration checkpoints and forced deportation of illegals fairly frequently, yet nobody external to this country cares too much about it. Obviously the lack of birthright citizenship in this country means there's far less issues with 'wait one of the 20 people we caught with no paperwork, minimal English and in a sketchy workplace situation was actually born here, MASSIVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION' that abounds in the West. The vast majority of people with the resources to make it to the USA are facing a low-moderate decrease in living standards from being removed, they're not being sent to Mordor or 'disappeared'

The vast majority of people with the resources to make it to the USA are facing a low-moderate decrease in living standards from being removed, they're not being sent to Mordor

This is fair, and worth repeating. But my primary concern is not with the long-term decrease in living standards once they're back home - my concern is with the inordinate amount of suffering involved in grabbing someone from their home without letting them pack their bags, say goodbye to their neighbors and coworkers, figure out what to do about pets, take a last stroll around the neighborhood that was their home for [X] years, etc. It's the difference between having to move, and having your house burn down. That (and of course the threat of violence during the raids themselves) is what I referred to as "brutal". That is what strikes me as being in violation of the Golden Rule, as being unkind, cruel, inhumane about ICE raids. Not the end goal of sending the illegals back to their country of origin.

Nothing can convince me that a not-otherwise-criminal illegal immigrant morally "deserves" that kind of treatment. You can make a pragmatic argument that, in practice, this is the only way to ensure they are deported at all, because they would otherwise vanish into the night the moment the officers' eyes are off them. But that just begs the question of how we got to that situation. It should not be beyond the state's capacity to "tag" an individual once identified by law enforcement, such that if they have not left the borders within [X] days they can instantly be tracked down and arrested. I'm taking ankle monitors, hell, maybe daily check-ins of some sort. Just something so that no human being has to suffer the inordinate stress and grief of being torn from their home literally overnight without the chance to put their affairs in order - an amount of suffering which is totally out of proportion with the very diffuse amount of harm that any given not-otherwise-criminal illegal immigrant causes by their continued presence in a host country.

my concern is with the inordinate amount of suffering involved in grabbing someone from their home without letting them pack their bags, say goodbye to their neighbors and coworkers, figure out what to do about pets, take a last stroll around the neighborhood that was their home for [X] years, etc. It's the difference between having to move, and having your house burn down.

I seriously do not comprehend this level of bleeding heart. If you sneak into a country illegally it comes with the territory that the life you build there will be precarious and liable to be snatched away at a moment’s notice. If we let people pack up all their possessions and move at their leisure then we are imposing no penalty on them, there would be no deterrence. There should be a degree of fear associated with living in a country illegally, ideally this will make some number self deport.

I suppose part of it is that think of illegal-immigrant status - particularly for people who outstayed a visa, rather than coming in illegally - as… well, not not a big deal exactly, but not the kind of thing that prima facie justifies any kind of retaliatory violence. Outstaying a visa seems more comparable to filing your taxes wrong than driving without a license, and still more similar to driving without a license than to drug trafficking. It's the kind of rule-breaking where if a critical mass of people do it at a time, it begins to harm the country in aggregate, so obviously the government takes measures to prevent it - but where a given rule-breaker isn't much more morally culpable than a jaywalker or someone who forgets a stray $50 on their tax reports.

To put it another way, I recognize at a rational, central-planning level that there must be limits on immigration, but I don't feel any personal animus against someone who circumvents those limits on the margins. My gut reaction isn't "this is an evil thing to do", it's "well, that seems a bit selfish in the grand scheme of things, a more virtuous person would think about the big picture and refrain from adding another straw to the camel's back… but eh, it is not given to just anybody to instinctively think like a central planner about the diffuse economic effects of excess untaxable unskilled labor, this is just some poor shmuck cutting corners and were I in their circumstances I might have taken the same leap". By all means we should try and take broad-level measures so that the opportunities for ignoring the rules close, but, as much as is possible, we shouldn't take this out on the actual human beings involved, who aren't doing anything that emotionally resonates with me as egregiously "immoral".

All of which being said, I'm also just a strong believer in kindness/charity/the Golden Rule. Even in cases where my gut reaction to a crime is disgust or resentment (and there are such crimes, illegal immigration just isn't among them), my higher conscience still generally tells me that to the extent that such a thing can be achieved while still suitably deterring further crimes of the same type, the individuals at issue should still be treated as well as possible - should still be given as much of a shot at happiness as possible without putting innocents at a disadvantage. Presumably your underlying moral principles differ somewhat.

I think ICE is using barbaric tactics and if we were serious about this whole get rid of the illegal immigrants thing we'd have passed Verify and mostly avoided the theatrics. But this view just seems so strangely naive. They didn't make a mistake on their tax, in the metaphor they've just decided that they're not going to pay taxes. They're blatantly and intentionally defying their host country's right to decide who is within their borders. I wouldn't feel like I was doing an oopsie if I decided to violate the borders and laws of my host country. The idea that they need to be served individual papers to be informed that their evicted is baffling, those papers were posted on whatever port of entry they came through. The time to say goodbye to their neighbors was before their stay became illegal. If this was them accidentally missing a renewal or thinking their stay ended next week rather than this week and it was all a clerical error then I could see what you mean but that's not what is happening. These are people who have been here for years and years after their legal status ended if they had one to begin with.

this is just some poor shmuck cutting corners and were I in their circumstances I might have taken the same leap". By all means we should try and take broad-level measures so that the opportunities for ignoring the rules close, but, as much as is possible, we shouldn't take this out on the actual human beings involved, who aren't doing anything that emotionally resonates with me as egregiously "immoral".

Recent experience says that you can't have both of these. Because this makes you subject to the very attack that has caused these sorts of ICE shenanigans and the general polarization around immigration: anyone who knows you're squeamish in this way can exploit it by refusing to enforce immigration laws on a local level and then hammer your empathy when someone from ICE finally gets that guy who's slipped past for a half-decade.

At which point, you'll be put in a position to pick a side and end up like everyone else.

More comments

without letting them [wind down their life here]

They had literal years, decades even, to do this. How much time is enough?

That is what strikes me as being in violation of the Golden Rule, as being unkind, cruel, inhumane about ICE raids.

I'd rather them prosecute the traffickers directly, but "daring to remove trafficked humans" might legitimately be the most punishment for the pro-trafficking faction that the anti-trafficking faction can muster.

They had literal years, decades even, to do this. How much time is enough?

Quoting myself from elsewhere in the thread:

I don't think human psychology is such that a mass message of this kind is fungible with a personal "you, yes you, we know who and where you are - you need to scram" notification, for much the same reason that a big sign that says 'don't step on the grass' is not as effective as a guard personally yelling 'hey, you, with the ugly sweater, get off the grass' - even though, in the latter case, many more people will comply with the verbal command than escalate to physical violence. We can wish human behavior were more rational, but you've got to work with what you've got.

Sure, but what actually happened here was half the country going "here's a free plane ticket, come on in, we'll never enforce this law, and you should ignore it- the guard may personally tell you you're in violation but he can't do anything, don't worry".

The guard now has the power to enforce the law, and has proceeded to do that.

without letting them pack their bags, say goodbye to their neighbors and coworkers, figure out what to do about pets, take a last stroll around the neighborhood that was their home for [X] years

As the reply to you states, a good chunk of these are already in the "this is the time you have to pack your bags and say goodbye" stage. For the ones that have not, they've been on notice since January 2025 when some official got on TV and said the guard's power was coming back, and literally half the nation (and statistically, where the trafficked humans are most likely to live) went into hysterics about "the guard is finally removing people".

Killing enemy soldiers is not breaking Golden Rule.

It might not be their fault they were there, but I'm not actually owed special protection from things that are not my fault, and trying to force me to grant it is an injury much like removing trafficked humans is to you. You could have bargained to change that law, and compromised with me, but you didn't do that. So, by Golden Rule Your Rules, Fairly...

More comments

describing them as "making people disappear" is not an unfair characterization.

When Pinochet "made people disappear" in Chile, they had cement blocks tied to their feet and were thrown into the Pacific Ocean from a helicopter. Then the government never acknowledged that this happened.

These death flights have been used by proper dictators to "make people disappear" all over the world. The Trump method of "disappearing" people is very different, and using the same word to describe them is an obvious motte-and-baily.

Physically removed, so to speak.

Your second paragraph would be my argument against your first.

The thing I would add is that the Trump administration has offered a free plane ticket to anywhere plus thousands of dollars to anyone willing to self-deport. That was their opportunity to pack their stuff and arrange an orderly return to their home country. Everybody who is still here, is here because they rejected that opportunity. To go back to the tenant analogy - you served them an eviction notice, that was their chance to pack up their stuff and move out in an orderly fashion. If they keep staying, virtually nobody disagrees that it's legitimate to have the sheriff show up and physically remove them and their possessions.

I don't think human psychology is such that a mass message of this kind is fungible with a personal "you, yes you, we know who and where you are - you need to scram" notification, for much the same reason that a big sign that says 'don't step on the grass' is not as effective as a guard personally yelling 'hey, you, with the ugly sweater, get off the grass' - even though, in the latter case, many more people will comply with the verbal command than escalate to physical violence. We can wish human behavior were more rational, but you've got to work with what you've got.

Regardless, I must once again return to a key point: it was not my intent to get into a debate about the practical merits of the "brutal" measures. Maybe they are necessary! Maybe they are morally justifiable! But that still leaves them quite different from "basic immigration enforcement".

Does the notice to them need to be in triplicate?

They know they are here illegal. They know there is a concerted effort to get them to leave. They could easily google and understand they will be treated nicely if they self deport.

A bunch of the people I've seen who have been deported have literally had multiple court days along the way in which they've been told to leave the country due to being unable to renew the visas, yet remained. The majority of the illegal immigrants aren't brought in via coyotes without ever encountering the system at all. They're just overstayers who've likely received explicit communications to leave.

It's the difference between serving an eviction notice to a tenant-turned-squatter, and physically throwing them out without even letting them grab their stuff.

Certainly these are different things, and I support both.

This strikes me as a motte and bailey - what does "basic immigration enforcement" mean? I don't object to deporting people. I object to grabbing them off the streets without warning. It's the difference between serving an eviction notice to a tenant-turned-squatter, and physically throwing them out without even letting them grab their stuff. The latter is inhumane behavior even in cases where a normal eviction notice would be legitimate and justified.

We've literally spent a year telling everyone that the party is over and it's time to leave, and offering them thousands of dollars if they just go willingly. You're the one doing a motte-and-bailey - "warning" in practice means a decade of catch and release, ignored court appointments and endless illegitimate appeals.

America is the only major country on the planet where people think that basic immigration enforcement is evil.

America is also the only country on the planet that protects free speech and the right to bear arms. Maybe I'll care what those other countries are doing when they've established basic freedoms.

People are allowed to try to prevent their own murder.

And maybe she was trying to prevent her own murder as well? She just saw a group of masked thugs surrounding her car. How could she know it was safe to surrender to them?

  • -14

America is also the only country on the planet that protects free speech and the right to bear arms.

Switzerland?

I don't think free speech in Switzerland is quite as expansive as in the US, and they have a few exceptions for incitement or hate speech, which I oppose. But the US does have a few exceptions as well, and in the most part I think they're fairly solid. I do respect the US for their ongoing and steadfast refusal to recognise 'hate speech' as a valid concept, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it's the only country on the planet with free speech.

America is also the only country on the planet that protects free speech and the right to bear arms. Maybe I'll care what those other countries are doing when they've established basic freedoms.

Do you think that it's a "basic freedom" to be allowed to live anywhere you want without citizenship or a visa? Nowhere in the world is this considered a right, not even in the USA.

And maybe she was trying to prevent her own murder as well? She just saw a group of masked thugs surrounding her car. How could she know it was safe to surrender to them?

Don't be disingenuous. She knew they were ICE because that's the entire reason she was blocking them with her car.

Do you think that it's a "basic freedom" to be allowed to live anywhere you want without citizenship or a visa?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced by the "other countries do it" argument. The question we should be asking is, what have we done so right that we're arguably the only country on earth with basic freedoms? I think our skepticism of federal authority has a lot to do with that. It's hard to enforce draconian immigration policies without infringing on our freedoms. In any situation where we have to choose between freedom and safety, we err on the side of freedom. I think a few people being murdered by illegal immigrants is a small price to pay.

Minnesota doesn’t get to decide to take all of the benefits of membership in the United States and then just blatantly ignore our laws. They doubly don’t get to do that after facilitating the theft of billions of dollars in federal aid.

well I don't care about minnesota, but in my state we need our illegals to pick crops. It's really that simple. If Trump actually deports them all it will be a major economic blow, and we have the right to maintain our way of life and our livelihoods. The US is meant to be a loose confederation of states that each run themselves how they see fit.

  • -19

If your economy depends on a caste of slave laborers to function, perhaps it deserves the major economic blow and restructuring that comes with removing said caste from service.

How are they "slave laborers"? They can leave or quit their jobs any time they want.

100% in agreement, which is why Trump’s not bothering with agriculture.

Look if you want to go back to pre antebellum understanding of the constitution and change the United States is to are then sure. Let’s do it. But that applies for a helluva lot more than immigration. We need to get rid of the income tax. And social security. And Medicare and Medicaid. Need to throw out a bunch if new deal regulations as well.

pre antebellum

Not good enough, we need to go pro-pre-ante-pen-bellum

Ha fair point. That’s what I get for posting quickly in the AM

To your point, though, I unironically want to repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to having Senators be appointed by the state legislatures, as specified in Article I, Section 3. If individual state legislatures choose to devolve this power to their respective electorates directly, that is their absolute right under the 10th Amendment—and otherwise, if the voters really want a say in their state’s Senators, then they are more than welcome to vote the bums out (of the state legislature)

As someone who whole-heartedly agrees with you, my understanding is this is essentially what happened. Most states had already devolved their Senatorial prerogatives to the People by the time the 17th was ratified, and many of the rest held non-binding primaries that the legislatures rarely overruled. I'm afraid there simply isn't any sort of popular appetite for a RETVRN to the properly appointed Senate. Even if we somehow overturnd the 17th Amendment, the vast majority of states would just keep their dorect elections anyway.

More comments

Sure. I’m not opposed to it. But…i am opposed to it if it’s limited to a single issue.

A Senate, If You Can Keep It and Two Amendments on the Senate would be a good read for you if you have not seen it yet.

More comments

Is this a Poe? If seems a little too on the nose.

Yeah vibe that the account's just flat-out trolling. Some of the responses steer a bit too close to the wind.

Who says they aren’t wanted there? I want them there. They are enforcing the duly enacted federal law. And fact of the matter is that unless we have internal checkpoints what blue states do with illegals adversely affects red states. So no, you don’t get a veto on our immigration laws where your side gets to make the law federally when you are in power but locally when out.

I think red states enforcing checkpoints sounds like a better idea than forcing a federal solution on everyone. As much as possible, we should try to let states make their own policy and let people move to whichever state seems to be running most efficiently. That lets the maximum number of people live under policies they support. Slavery was morally egregious enough to justify a civil war, but it seems like a waste to risk starting one over a minor disagreement like this.

  • -13

Ok so internal checkpoints. Are we also supposed to fund the illegals? What about voting?

Potentially she should have not put her foot on said accelerator and complied with the requests?

Probably, but when aggressive people are surrounding your car, the flight or fight response might kick in. Being arrested by ICE is also not quite the same as being arrested by your local police department, since we don't really know what happens to everyone who goes into ICE custody. If the police are trying to arrest me unjustly, I would assume I'll get my day in court. But if ICE deports me to a costa rican gang prison it might be hard to prove my innocence.

  • -19

This kind of misinformation will get more people killed.

Q: Aren’t people in ICE custody routinely “disappeared”?
No. Like most (not all) law enforcement agencies in the modern era, ICE has a detainee registry and an online portal where you can search for them. They have a website listing their locations and describing visiting hours, lawyer hours, and ways to send gifts to detainees.
Also, of course, unlike most prisoners, people detained for immigration violations usually have the option to leave, in fairly short order, by accepting voluntary departure to their home country.

misinformation

I really dislike this word. The government doesn't get to decide what is true and what is false. They may claim that everyone in ICE custody is accounted for, but I have no reason to believe them. Donald Trump is a serial liar, and so is everyone working for him.

But in that case, why do you believe the government when it says "do not resist when police arrest you, if it's all a big mistake you will be released within a couple days at the most?" But then don't apply that same trust to it when it says, "Same applies to ICE?" It's the same source. If the problem is federal/local, substitute being arrested by the FBI, would you have the same response to being arrested by the FBI as you do to ICE?

Instead, I have seen a large online campaign to paint ICE as unusual with zero jurisdiction on anything, operating under no rules, with no training. When really, they get the normal amount of training (ICE agents train at FLETC for about 3–5 months, then complete on-the-job probation before being considered field-ready, which is a comparable amount to the FBI.) They have jurisdiction to arrest people, even American citizens, over crimes committed in their presence. And the people they arrest can only be held for so long before a judge approves the detainment. And the people they send out of the country all have final orders of removal from an immigration judge.

why do you believe the government when it says "do not resist when police arrest you, if it's all a big mistake you will be released within a couple days at the most?"

I don't believe them by default, they earn that trust through transparency and independent oversight. And of course, there is always the threat of consequences if government becomes too authoritarian. ICE employees don't behave anything like normal police officers, and they haven't done anything to earn our trust. I know several of my local sheriffs by name, one of them even lives down the street. ICE agents are faceless and unaccountable, and they seem to report directly to the serial liar and criminal currently running the government. We have no obligation to "obey" them just because some federal law saws so.

I am related to an above average number of police officers and security personnel and ICE agents have not earned that "don't behave anything like normal police officers" comment. They seem normal to me. You are going to have to be more specific in your derision.

More comments

In fact, it was a big point in the Allentown grandfather story that he didn't show up on that registry. Of course that was because the story was completely made up, rather than ICE doing anything wrong.

Probably, but when aggressive people are surrounding your car, the flight or fight response might kick in.

It might, but that doesn't seem to be an acceptable legal defense, historically.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats