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 an obvious point here where ordinary cops have a real job maintaining public order, whereas nothing about what ICE does requires them to act the way they do other than the appetite for ostentatious thuggery.
Could you share your dignified and courteous looking method for locating and arresting people that are trying to hide from law enforcement?
Local police manage to do it just fine. You do investigation/surveillance and perform targeted arrests rather than grandiose sweeps with masked agents cosplaying as soldiers. (Of course, ICE does that in the most psychotic and inept way possible as well - see the Ozturk case)
Or, since we're talking about immigration enforcement specifically, you change the laws to make employing illegal immigrants virtually impossible. That will, of course, never happen, because it would mean holding the business gentry that run the GOP liable for something.
I go back to: the ostentatious thuggery is the point. ICE doesn't have to be filled with the semi-trained dregs of the Red Tribe, but it is. If you're anti-Trump, ICE is supposed to scare you. If you're pro-Trump, ICE is a steady source of cruelty porn.
I'm sure part of the point is to be grandiose and look unstoppable and ferocious but I still don't know how you do mass arrests in a way that isn't outrageous looking. I think it needs to be mass arrests too. If you just go in and arrest one person at a time you tip off all of the neighboring illegals to make themselves scarce.
Do we think the US could actually pull this off? It took us 20+ years just to implement Real ID.
Why would you even need mass arrests? What even are mass arrests and what do they have to do with honest immigration control? Actual immigration police work should 99% paperwork. You see it all the time with border control and passports. It's the whitest of white collar crimes. You check papers and hand papers to people telling them their papers are not in order, and occasional escort people to a holding place to expel them from the country. It's not dramatic. These are not hardened criminals, they're mostly middle aged schlubs living normal lives.
What you do is you send actual real officers of the law, not ICE paramilitary LARPers, to go where you think your intelligence has informed you someone has overstayed their visa, or never had a visa to begin with, then inform them and maybe put them in a car to take them to a jail or something. It's not rocket science. It doesn't need guns, let alone hidden secret police identities, tacticool gear, assault and aggressive belligerence, or any of this extra crap.
Like if i were an illegal immigrant in Japan, overstaying my visa or whatever, I would expect the police to knock on my door politely "Sumimasen, you must come with us." inform me I have brokent the law and eventually get me on a plane out of the country. Why is this hard?
Make themselves scarce where? These are immigrants. Not squatters or fantasy realm thieves. They can't live in the mountains or sewers to hide until the heat is down. The entire point of (mass) immigration is people need and work jobs to live. If you know enough to find someone that border crossed or doesn't have their papers in order, why wouldn't you be able to find them at their cousins? Why wouldn't you just tell their place of work, "inform us when they come back, they are breaking the law."?
For sure it could. What would be hard about it? But it won't. Because immigration control is a fake issue they don't really want to enforce.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is there anything about deportations that requires leftists to throw up road blocks to obstruct law enforcement and occasionally launch murderous militia attacks?
More options
Context Copy link
Please elaborate. Given the Resistance (TM) to ICE doing its job's increasing boldness and aggression, escalations by ICE officers are predictable, if unfortunate.
They could train their agents better, conduct themselves in a less escalatory fashion, stop attacking protestors, stop trying to intimidate people for mouthing off to them, not wear masks, prioritize targeted operations over open-ended sweeps, not racially profile people or violate the civil rights of citizens by detaining them on no grounds beyond their skin color...
Like, the conceit of Millerites is that illegal immigration constitutes this overwhelming problem that justifies extreme, unconstitutional measures and massive expense, but it just... doesn't. These sweeps are not preventing some dire outcome. They're satisfying the anxieties and appetites of thuggish nativists.
It's predictable in the sense that they're bottom of the barrel recruits with limited training working for an administration that tacitly endorses police brutality.
All those are just kinda naked assertions without support. Appeals to better training don't have a schelling point. No one has made a concrete argument that the ICE training academy has any specific failures. The officer in question had 10+ years on the job with no major incidents until someone hit him with their car. As to escalation, they are just doing their job and people are harassing them and obstruction them with cars, and often putting their own bodies in the street. That is naturally escalatory. If you did the same thing to state police en masse, people would also end up in officer involved fatalities. We know why ICE wears masks, its because of multiple credible threats to their families after they have been doxxed online.
Disagree that illegal immigration is not a large problem that requires a large response. Regardless, the set of ICE actions currently being undertaken is not unconstitutional. They are arresting people who have detention holds and/or removal orders, and then from time to time they also pick up people who are in the vicinity that they have probable cause to believe are also illegal.
More assertions not in evidence. Where is your evidence pertaining to some entrance exam or the like that the new ICE hires are akin to "Project 100000"?
More options
Context Copy link
Can you name a single time this happened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ice-apprehension-of-us-citizens-derided-as-kavanaugh-stops
https://ij.org/client/leonardo-garcia-venegas/
You're welcome. (I'm sure you'll have some explanation for how explicit racial profiling isn't racial profiling)
Only one of those is even pretending to be an example. So, in the 700k deportations they did last year, ICE briefly detained a single citizen who was on a work crew with a bunch of other Hispanic guys who totally were illegal?
Did the anti-ICE folks finally accept that "guy who was working security on the weed farm that used illegal minors as child slaves" wasn't the most compelling case?
Seriously, if this is the best you have to offer then ICE is doing a spectacular job.
BTW,
You're welcome.
You asked for a single example. I gave you a single example.
This is the product of about nine seconds of research to recall the details of a half-remembered case. I see no reason to put more effort into it when past experience has shown that there is no amount of unambiguous evidence that you would accept at face value, let alone as demonstrative of a pattern.
Sure, it's just that when I do that for things like excessive anti-gun laws I come up with examples like "black mom who had a totally legal gun in the back of her car by her home state's standards who was arrested and prosecuted for having a gun while getting gas because she didn't quite appreciate that her route passed through New Jersey". Or "veteran who was stopped in DC, and then arrested and prosecuted for having a spent shell casing in the trunk of his car".
In both cases, I hope them to be persuasive because of the vast chasm between the extremely minor infraction and then facing years of jail time. Imagine if the best example I could come up with was "The ATF went after this guy just because he owned a gun (and also, he was part of a gang of people that shot up a store and he was totally there but he says he didn't shoot)". I don't imagine that anyone on the other side would find that even slightly persuasive, and I would probably have to have an "Are we the baddies?" moment.
The demonstrated pattern is that you have nothing remotely resembling "unambiguous" evidence. I've been asking this question for a year now, and every single example makes ICE seem actually extremely professional and reasonable.
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