domain:samschoenberg.substack.com
gattsuru
5hr ago
My impression is that the stuff about voluntary vs involuntary search is that it mainly has to do with what evidence is admissible in court - law enforcement agents are going to be able to go where they want whether or not your cooperation is voluntary.
The California bill has absolutely zero to do with what's admissible in court -- not just because immigration courts are federal processes where it can't apply, but also because it includes a fine aimed at employers who voluntarily cooperate with federal agents, or voluntarily provide documentation to federal agents.
And in terms of documents, documents that are actually relevant to work eligibility are already covered as things that employers should cooperate with if there's an administrative warrant.
The law requires employers to ignore administrative warrants for personnel records. It's in the FAQ you're quoting!
My understanding is that what you can't do is hand over the Workday login to ICE and invite them to go on a fishing expedition unless you are compelled to do so.
Or access to a nonpublic area of a workplace. Or specific employee records. Even if given an administrative warrant, you can not do so without risking tens of thousands of dollars per instance. Or to reverify existing employees, such as, just as a theoretical exercise, an employer isn't quite sure if they did that initial eVerify check.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5hr ago
one of your trantifa insurrectionists trying to kill his family over it?
I have no connection, affiliation, or agreement with whatever portmanteau of trans(?) and Antifa you made here. I find both of those groups insufferable.
I don't understand your quote/allegory of my words to be honest.
As does your eliding that, per your own link, immigration is still Trump's best polling policy.
That has nothing to do with my thesis, which is that optics (perception) of ICE is horrible, and it's clearly shown by the fact his approval on immigration, relative to earlier, has been dropping.
Just because he's even more underwater on his other awful ideas doesn't challenge this.
A solid majority of Americans still want every illegal deported
Yes they do, which is fine, I don't blame them, but they're clearly not thrilled with how it's happening WHICH IS LITERALLY THE OPTICS THING LMFAO
Also as an aside but it's just so blatantly clear they don't actually want to "solve" immigration because as stated infinity times, they're not taking any action to make employers use e-verify more and they're EXPLICITLY AND DELIBERATELY not going after hotels or farms, which are two of the biggest low hanging fruit for tons of illegal immigrants in obvious places.
If they wanted to, they would, and they aren't, so they don't.
This entire forum is so allergic to admitting this. If they actually wanted to address immigration, they'd punish the American citizens who give illegal immigrants money to do jobs. THE ILLEGALS ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU PAY THEM. Just go after the people who pay them, it's that simple. Again, this forum is wildly allergic to admitting that.
When people tell me it exists, I like taking a look.
I guess I'm just not sure how to define or quantify a fuzzy object like "optics" which by nature is opinion based, without pointing at measures of people's opinions.
Also on a real human level, they're just obviously bad? Partisanship aside can we not agree that dudes in face coverings abducting people and sending some of them to 3rd world prisons run by dictators is really fucking off-putting?
To be honest, I actually feel like you're being willfully ignorant here. When people in this thread say "Optics" they obviously mean "the public perception or appearance of an action, decision, or policy. How it looks rather than what it is."
Perception is everything here, and polls measure perception/opinion.
Why are polls a lame argument?
The Economist is generally regarded as a reliable source, and Nate Silver is a very talented pollster, so it is highly likely these pills are a real indication of how the American people feel. If you have a different hypothesis as to how the American people feel, you should present it.
By the way, did you just type out the same 2-3 paragraphs in 3 different comments? Are you ok?
I'm pretty sure I'm responding to 3 different people, so I wanted to make sure they all saw the stats that back my hypothesis. Copy and pasted so it was pretty easy, but I appreciate you checking.
Jiro
6hr ago
Of course, we understand now that John Brown was in the right when he attempted to secure his moral values through direct, murderous violence against those who disagreed, and of course we understand that similar murderous violence is acceptable when confronted by evil, implacable tyranny backed by force of law. The only wrinkle is that we cannot agree on what constitutes "evil" or "tyranny"
If the left thinks it was good to assassinate Charlie Kirk because it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, and that the only disagreement was whether he was evil, they can say "we think it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, we just disagree whether Charlie Kirk was evil". They won't do this. (And I don't think that's out of fear of being arrested, either, given the rhetoric that is acceptable.)
gattsuru
6hr ago
It looks like people here were pretty close to universal in saying the ATF was incompetent, malicious, or most likely both here.
Would you like to demonstrate where, exactly, Rov_Scam said that, rather than moe about gun owners not wanting to compromise?
Yeah, it is an unfortunate truth that "someone did an unambiguously terrible thing and now the world is worse :(" doesn't get nearly as much engagement as "someone did a thing, maybe it's very bad, maybe it's not so bad, but everyone has an opinion and thinks anyone who disagrees with them is an evil mutant".
Oh, if everyone agreed it was awful, then there must be a whole ton of sympathetic coverage from mainstream and even progressive sources, right? I must be able to find some Honest Gun Control Advocate who talked about how they wanted enforcement, but Not Like This, rather than just memory hole or completely ignore the matter? President Biden, who was willing to speak out personally about an immigration officer using reins on a horse, must have spoken on the matter: it was the middle of election season and an excellent opportunity to Sister Souljah nutjobs. Or if his brain was too applesauce at the time, perhaps Kamala "I own A Glock" Harris did so? The officers in question -- who unquestionably did violate policy, and near-certainly violated a lot of constitutional protections in addition to the not-getting-shot-in-head-bit -- must have been fired or at least demoted, right, even if they couldn't be prosecuted?
Ah, no.
In (to pick an arbitrary Biden year) 2022, ICE deported about 70,000 people. Not more than a handful of those people were cause celebres. Likewise in 2018 (to pick an arbitrary Trump 1 year), and likewise this year.
Did you follow the link? Because a good part of the complaint here is that those 2018-2019 period did get a massive amount of often-not-honest outrage, even when the some of photos predated Trump. Yes, no one cared about Biden deportations, that's the punchline.
That's the joke, and that's why the outrage here is a joke.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
Surely there is some guy, somewhere, who is already in a position of high status, who can act as the mouthpiece or advocate for disaffected males without implicating any individual man as the complainant. Someone who can beseach the egregore on behalf of his brethren by amplifying the words they are individually scared to mouth.
No, there isn't. It's not just that making the complaint implicates the complainer. It's that the complaint itself is invalid by the standards of traditional masculinity. Portraying men as somehow in opposition to women already takes you out of the traditional Overton Window.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
6hr ago
Once you free yourself from pernicious America-centrism, Osama just doesn’t rate. These dictators have to compete on fundamentals.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
He also flew every deployed star officer and their SEAs to Quantico for the biggest set-piece speech to the brass since Washington was alive, and told them that the people of Chicago were domestic enemies of the United States and that the officer corps should prepare for war against them.
This statement appears to be untrue. The context of the "enemy from within" quote (which has been reported by many sources as "enemy within") is
Everybody knows friends, many friends probably, that you lost a child or adults too, but you lost a son or daughter because of what's coming into our border. And we're making it very hard -- oh, and we haven't even started yet. Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances.
This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it's the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control. It won't get out of control, once you're involved, at all. They all joke, they say, oh, this is not good. You saw it in Washington. We had gangs of Tren de Aragua, say 10, 12, 15 kids.
This particular group is not the people of Chicago, but illegal immigrants who are already present (thus "within")
He later talks about career criminals in a way which indicates they are also domestic enemies. He never refers to the people of Chicago as domestic enemies.
Surely there is some guy, somewhere, who is already in a position of high status, who can act as the mouthpiece or advocate for disaffected males without implicating any individual man as the complainant. Someone who can beseach the egregore on behalf of his brethren by amplifying the words they are individually scared to mouth.
Just one dude, somewhere, who has the necessary 'clout' to say "no, many men are suffering under current norms and these norms should shift, and men should demand much, much better treatment (while still being worthy of it)."
Oh wait. That's Andrew Tate.
Once again I point out that the fact that Tradcons have largely failed to provide the men they want to step up and "lead" with either a viable path to becoming worthy, or a proper incentive (i.e. an appealing pool of marriageable women) for doing so. They could at least provide a realistic and admirable role model to provide the inspiration and advocacy men crave.
Oh wait, that was Charlie Kirk.
In principle I agree with your point entirely.
In fact, I think this dynamic, mixed with the fact that the internet grants a massive advantage to those who are able to freely type out their complaints and form (the appearance of) a massive public consensus by finding other people who are also typing out their similar complaints and then form an 'interest group' that types out their complaints en masse to ultimately steer the debate to their preferred outcome.
i.e. we get dozens of articles from women discussing womens' grievances, whereas men are mostly commiserating amongst themselves, so on a social level the average normie assumes women's complaints are much more important because they're that much more salient.
And this dynamic is amplified by the fact that the internet rewards grievance and rage farming with more attention.
So basically because men aren't rewarded at all for speaking out about their struggles, especially in the medium-form article format, and women not only find that format more intuitive they are continually rewarded with attention for raising it, the feedback loop is pretty predictable from there.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
6hr ago
They could win me over by actually delivering the public works improvements they campaign on and use to justify tax increases. When they can't or won't, the choice between simply not getting the improvements and getting taxed a bunch of money and still not getting improvements seems obvious. If Democrats in California had actually delivered a well-performing high-speed railroad by now, on time and on budget, I would probably be pretty stoked about voting for that on a national level. But they failed, and in a way that made it seem like they didn't even care whether they succeeded or not.
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
6hr ago
Living and working in America is not a universal human right.
This extremely basic concept that a very large majority of American voters agree with was painstakingly sidelined in all major institutions by the elite of both parties during my entire lifetime, to keep the tap of virtually unlimited cheap labor flowing.
Seeing people cry tears of blood at the enforcement of very basic immigration law is hilarious, but also a sad reminder of how far collectively we have strayed into decadence and away from the foundational job of a functional state; providing territorial integrity.
The question of who is a member of a community and who is not is so fundamental, it’s what is known as the “pre-political”; it’s the primer of a common political identity that allows for political action to be taken and sustained without violence from opposing parties.
There are people who decry the crumbling of taboos and polite conventions in politics and point their finger to this person or that person, but this is the very heart of it, and no return to civility is possible without resolving this issue because civility is based on group solidarity and group solidarity cannot survive past a certain threshold of diversity, because past that threshold there simply is no “group” to have solidarity with.
cjet79
6hr ago
A comment below compared this to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. I actually had the same thought, and wanted to expand on it.
Lets get this out of the way first: I don't think they are morally equivalent, escaping human slavery is not the same as escaping a crappy country. Being sent back to a crappy country is not the same as being sent back to a crappy country.
Where they are similar is in the political situation at hand. The fugitive slave act was meant to bring a recalcitrant north in line with the south's slavery policies. Now the divide is more between cities and rural, and the different policy preference is on immigration levels. In both cases local enforcement is needed everywhere to maintain the policy. In both cases the different policy preferences means that some areas are just not interested in carrying out the law enforcement needed.
Slavery is perhaps about 80-90% of why the civil war started. These kinds of issues do have the power to tear a nation apart. But I don't think immigration will do it. Not because of the geography of the situation. Sometimes civil wars have clean geographic dividing lines like north and south. But plenty of modern examples just have a pervasive insurgency hiding in plain site among civilians.
The reason I don't think immigration will be a lynchpin for a civil war is that most civil wars have competing groups of elites vying for power. And there are no elite groups in America that actually want to limit immigration. Academics don't want that. Business owners don't want it, immigration is great economically. Politicians don't truly want it (as someone else pointed out Trump is very conveniently ignoring the many illegal migrant farmers that keep food prices down).
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
6hr ago
Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. These are the kinds of replies that still make TheMotte worthwhile, so I appreciate it, I truly do.
we keep "it" sacred.
No arguments there.
We should make special rules to protect the special things.
Perhaps. But, what kinds of rules?
The Bible is special too. But Christians don't think we should ban the Bible in order to protect it. They think we should disseminate it as widely as possible precisely because it's sacred and it brings people into contact with the sacred. (In fact they arrange regular mass public gatherings where they come together to worship that which is considered sacred. Apply the same logic to sexuality and...)
How do we demarcate the sacred things that need to be disseminated from the sacred things that need to be protected? Do we have a schema outlining the different modalities in which something may be sacred?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
Trump talks about sending troops into cities to quell general lawlessness, but apart from DC he has not done so - the facts on the ground are entirely about immigration enforcement.
Until and unless he invokes the Insurrection Act, Trump does not have the authority to send troops into cities (aside from DC) to quell general lawlessness, except the National Guard with the co-operation of the state governor. It appears Trump has agreement to do so in Memphis but has not actually done so yet.
stuckinbathroom
6hr ago
Morality cannot exist between entities that are so different in power and nature.
… which of course is why there can be no possible moral objection to wantonly torturing puppies and kittens just for laughs (/s)
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
6hr ago
I don't think they're guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but it's definitely bizarre to turn around and conclude that they're heroes, which is how they're being treated by progressives (???)
I think this is a general problem of modern therapy culture - we can't distinguish between innocent victims and actual heroes. (Christian martyrology doesn't help). I first noticed this after 9-11 - far too many people failed to make a moral distinction between the unheroic victims (the office workers in the towers and the Pentagon, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets) and the actual heroes (the firemen and police who climbed up the burning towers, and the passengers on United 93).
The central park 5 were the victims of serious wrongdoing, in that they were imprisoned for far longer (and under worse conditions, as sex offenders) than would be justified by the various minor offences they committed as juveniles. That 4 of the 5 went straight after getting out is not particularly surprising and is why we have a relatively soft criminal justice system for juveniles - most (but by no means all) criminal youths grow out of it if given the chance. They aren't "heroes", and I don't think anyone capable of making the distinction thinks they are.
peacefully breaking immigration laws is immoral on the level of filesharing or handling salmon suspiciously
This is, of course, the load-bearing item of contention. To me, and to many, peacefully breaking immigration laws is some combination of trespass, home invasion and squatting. If I come to your house, and I eat your food and I tell you I'm never leaving, and the police back me up, it's not really your house any more. If 100 people like me do they same, it's definitely not your house any more. You are vestigial. Maybe there are photos of your family on the dresser - what do those people mean to me and mine? My children's photos will look much better there. Your furniture is ugly and doesn't represent my culture - let's throw it out, sell it, burn it for warmth.* It doesn't matter how peaceful illegal immigrants are, or if they do odd jobs around 'your' (for now) house. Demographic change is demographic change.
That's ignoring the face that lots of illegal immigrants actually turn out to be neither nice, peaceful or helpful, of course. But is it any wonder that voters react badly to breaking immigration law, or helping others break immigration law, when seen from this perspective?
*You might feel that this is catastrophising, or at least very pessimistic. I think that anyone pro-immigration must feel that way, but post-woke I can't agree. The outbreak of statue-vandalism, proposed name changes to get rid of all the old English names on parks and streets (most of which didn't get pushed through because there was no yet enough support), the direct import of specifically American racial grievances post-Floyd, the constant drumbeat of 'X is no longer appropriate for Modern (Multicultural) Britain' moved me heavily on these issues.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
The habeas corpus petition was filed on September 30. He was detained on August 27. That's a solid month. How long do you think is appropriate to hold someone without charging them?
That wasn't the question. The question is whether he was disappeared. He was not. I do not know why it took a month to file the petition.
It's quite possible ICE did wrong here. What they did not do is disappear someone.
My non expert reading is that the judge is pissed at a level that is not normal.
I don't much care. Performative pissyness from judges seems to be pretty standard in political cases, and doesn't stop the judges from being overruled.
Mantergeistmann
6hr ago
My mom still has a painted Harris/Walz rock (?) in her back garden.
My stepmother named a beloved houseplant "Kamala".
ulyssessword
6hr ago
"...moral duty to resist them" can definitely stretch to treason. I don't think the recent attacks on the convoy or facility count (they're regular crime instead), but scale it up by 100x and it would.
It could also mean something as milquetoast as refusing to volunteer information and help, which is completely protected conduct.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
They also haven't seen and/or haven't thought about how law enforcement is done. It's often brutal, because you're trying to catch people who don't want to be caught and make them do things they don't want to do. It's also often far more brutal than it has to be, but most of the time you can't tell if it is that just by looking at a few short videos. Dragging people away at gunpoint is part of what law enforcement does, and indeed there are many circumstances where they are masked when doing so. I object to most of ICEs masking, but I don't believe for a second that the objection here would go away or become significantly less strident if they didn't do so.
daguerrean
6hr ago
…no? Prohibition was totally legitimate, attacking random police officers during prohibition would’ve been very wrong too.
BurdensomeCount
Unable to escape TheMotte's cycle of Samsara...
7hr ago
The same argument applies equally well to supporting Prohibition, however I'd wager you see the fight against Prohibition and its reduction in freedom as a good one.
Comments on Twitter you don't like is quite literally the definition of "algorithmic rage bait slop" because the Twitter algorithm specifically shows you things that'll make you unhappy because that makes you engage more.
If you take the opinions of a clown (liberal cuck? He's actually pathetic) like Patton Oswalt you are being rage baited.
More options
Context Copy link