4 ms·

>[ICE/CBP's] continued efforts to target and tear apart communities across the country. Is this kind of partisan dog-whistling really necessary? The ACLU does

>[ICE/CBP's] continued efforts to target and tear apart communities across the country. Is this kind of partisan dog-whistling really necessary? The ACLU does good work at the end of the day, but this sentence makes their stance on border control loud and clear. And I call it dog-whistling because it does nothing but detract from an otherwise reasonable stance on surveillance abuse, for the sake of a wink and a nod.

tedajax 7y ago
Easy for you to say if you're not in the effected communities...
- Karunamon 7y ago
  To say that ICE or CBP's "effort" is to "target and tear apart communities" is the kind of dishonesty that would be rightly flagged off of HN as inflammatory nonsense.
  - minikites 7y ago
    It sure looks like tearing apart to me: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family... >However, The New Yorker spoke to lawyers and advocates who said there is no formal process or clear protocol for tracking parents and children within the system and that chaotic systems and inadequate record keeping make it difficult even to know which facility a child might be kept at.
  - stanferder 7y ago
    I don't think it rises to the level of dishonesty, but I do think the writer should not have included something as unknowable and irrelevant as the possible hidden motives of these agencies. Nevertheless, suing these agencies to prevent unwarranted surveillance is justified.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    It’s what people who were working for the agencies themselves have said: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways
Latty 7y ago
Their stance is the only one compatible with their core aims. I'm not sure why you would expect anything else.
- briandear 7y ago
  Except they didn’t have the same stance under Obama whose administration used stingrays prolifically as well.
  - alamortsubite 7y ago
    They've had the same stance since at least 2014. https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-florida-v-city-sarasota-stingray-cell-phone-tracking https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-florida-v-city-sarasota-stin...
  - munk-a 7y ago
    They did actually - but while Obama was in office information about the program was far less public - here's a summary of events leading up to a Jan 13, 2016 lawsuit[1] and here's an article from early 2016 on a different lawsuit[2]. The ACLU has had a consistent stance as far as I'm aware - if you have some sources to indicate otherwise please do supply them. And, not doing a thing because it wasn't done before is a whataboutism appeal that prevents us from improving our actions - it isn't a really logical argument except within the realm of US law and prior precedent. 1. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/aclu-v-doj-stingrays https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/aclu-v-doj-stin... 2. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59776736.html https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59...
daveoflynn 7y ago
It’s not “for the sake of a wink and a nod” or “dogwhistling.” The ACLU is actively campaigning against the way the US Government and ICE in particular treats immigrants and people around the borders. Have a look at the ACLU website... their position is quite clear.
- mc32 7y ago
  The case they mention was about tracking someone who re-entered illegally. How else are they to get people to comply? Send them a nice note to comply? Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Certainly not by means of unconstitutional mass surveillance.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    Most asylum seekers do show up to for their court dates. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26...
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates. Many implies a majority. In fact, far from it. ICE and CBP already have tools to deal with people they deem a flight risk including but not limited to ankle monitors, etc.
nostrademons 7y ago
Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent. All people are equal, and all are entitled to equal protection of their fundamental civil liberties. Their position on border control follows from this: you are entitled to civil liberties because you are human, not because you are an American citizen. There're some pragmatic limitations on this (there's little that the ACLU can do to protect the civil liberties of people residing in China or Russia, for example), but they've consistently fought to extend civil liberties to everyone - even, for example, American citizens of Iraqi descent residing in Iraq. It's both of the major parties that have inconsistent stances on this, which can largely be summed up as "civil liberties for me, but not for thee". That's why the ACLU tends to get flack from both sides of the aisle. Both parties try to define one group of people as their "tribe" and maximize their own liberties, while defining another group as an outgroup and trying to deny their liberties. And it works: there's nothing quite so motivating as an outgroup. But I'm glad that there are organizations that take a principled, logical stance toward freedom without discriminating against who gets that freedom.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  Those liberties are restricted, justly, when one violates a law. Setting aside the perfectly reasonable outrage at mass surveillance techniques, the ACLU seems to have a problem with any border enforcement, including the kind of temporary detainment that is a requirement for any kind of justice system to function! Civil liberties do not include the right to enter another sovereign country without that country's consent, so yes, the liberty of free movement into and within a country is something that citizens and legal residents have that other people do not. This is not a simple problem that lends itself well to the kind of pithy soundbites I complained about in the OP.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent. Except the right to bear arms, of course.
iron0013 7y ago
I don’t think it’s a dog whistle, because the ACLU is stating it openly and clearly: ICE and CBP are unconstitutionally violating our civil rights. Nothing winky or noddy about it, and good on them for not mincing words!
KarlKemp 7y ago
Do you believe the ACLU‘s other/typical cases to be uncontroversial, to not have much opposition? The ACLU is rather consistent. It’s you who just happens to believe there are some people undeserving of civil liberties. A civil liberties Organisation that only acts on behalf of groups enjoying broad sympathy is useless.

tedajax 7y ago

Easy for you to say if you're not in the effected communities...

Karunamon 7y ago
To say that ICE or CBP's "effort" is to "target and tear apart communities" is the kind of dishonesty that would be rightly flagged off of HN as inflammatory nonsense.
- minikites 7y ago
  It sure looks like tearing apart to me: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family... >However, The New Yorker spoke to lawyers and advocates who said there is no formal process or clear protocol for tracking parents and children within the system and that chaotic systems and inadequate record keeping make it difficult even to know which facility a child might be kept at.
- stanferder 7y ago
  I don't think it rises to the level of dishonesty, but I do think the writer should not have included something as unknowable and irrelevant as the possible hidden motives of these agencies. Nevertheless, suing these agencies to prevent unwarranted surveillance is justified.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  It’s what people who were working for the agencies themselves have said: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways

Latty 7y ago

Their stance is the only one compatible with their core aims. I'm not sure why you would expect anything else.

briandear 7y ago
Except they didn’t have the same stance under Obama whose administration used stingrays prolifically as well.
- alamortsubite 7y ago
  They've had the same stance since at least 2014. https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-florida-v-city-sarasota-stingray-cell-phone-tracking https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-florida-v-city-sarasota-stin...
- munk-a 7y ago
  They did actually - but while Obama was in office information about the program was far less public - here's a summary of events leading up to a Jan 13, 2016 lawsuit[1] and here's an article from early 2016 on a different lawsuit[2]. The ACLU has had a consistent stance as far as I'm aware - if you have some sources to indicate otherwise please do supply them. And, not doing a thing because it wasn't done before is a whataboutism appeal that prevents us from improving our actions - it isn't a really logical argument except within the realm of US law and prior precedent. 1. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/aclu-v-doj-stingrays https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/aclu-v-doj-stin... 2. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59776736.html https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59...

daveoflynn 7y ago

It’s not “for the sake of a wink and a nod” or “dogwhistling.” The ACLU is actively campaigning against the way the US Government and ICE in particular treats immigrants and people around the borders. Have a look at the ACLU website... their position is quite clear.

mc32 7y ago
The case they mention was about tracking someone who re-entered illegally. How else are they to get people to comply? Send them a nice note to comply? Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  Certainly not by means of unconstitutional mass surveillance.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Most asylum seekers do show up to for their court dates. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26...
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates. Many implies a majority. In fact, far from it. ICE and CBP already have tools to deal with people they deem a flight risk including but not limited to ankle monitors, etc.

nostrademons 7y ago

Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent. All people are equal, and all are entitled to equal protection of their fundamental civil liberties. Their position on border control follows from this: you are entitled to civil liberties because you are human, not because you are an American citizen. There're some pragmatic limitations on this (there's little that the ACLU can do to protect the civil liberties of people residing in China or Russia, for example), but they've consistently fought to extend civil liberties to everyone - even, for example, American citizens of Iraqi descent residing in Iraq. It's both of the major parties that have inconsistent stances on this, which can largely be summed up as "civil liberties for me, but not for thee". That's why the ACLU tends to get flack from both sides of the aisle. Both parties try to define one group of people as their "tribe" and maximize their own liberties, while defining another group as an outgroup and trying to deny their liberties. And it works: there's nothing quite so motivating as an outgroup. But I'm glad that there are organizations that take a principled, logical stance toward freedom without discriminating against who gets that freedom.

Karunamon 7y ago
Those liberties are restricted, justly, when one violates a law. Setting aside the perfectly reasonable outrage at mass surveillance techniques, the ACLU seems to have a problem with any border enforcement, including the kind of temporary detainment that is a requirement for any kind of justice system to function! Civil liberties do not include the right to enter another sovereign country without that country's consent, so yes, the liberty of free movement into and within a country is something that citizens and legal residents have that other people do not. This is not a simple problem that lends itself well to the kind of pithy soundbites I complained about in the OP.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
> Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent. Except the right to bear arms, of course.

iron0013 7y ago

I don’t think it’s a dog whistle, because the ACLU is stating it openly and clearly: ICE and CBP are unconstitutionally violating our civil rights. Nothing winky or noddy about it, and good on them for not mincing words!

KarlKemp 7y ago

Do you believe the ACLU‘s other/typical cases to be uncontroversial, to not have much opposition? The ACLU is rather consistent. It’s you who just happens to believe there are some people undeserving of civil liberties. A civil liberties Organisation that only acts on behalf of groups enjoying broad sympathy is useless.