3 ms·

> There is only one way to enforce the law Treating every possible infraction like a hard felony is both costly to the taxpayer and chilling to tourists. The

> There is only one way to enforce the law Treating every possible infraction like a hard felony is both costly to the taxpayer and chilling to tourists. The approach of ICE appears to be: Nobody has rights, no search is unreasonable, harvest all the data, then lock everyone up and put them at the back of a hearing queue. Post-9/11 America is a horrible border experience for legitimate tourists. It is repeatedly noted about how unwelcome you are and how very little you need to do to be incarcerated and deported.

necovek 2y ago
Who said anything about taking the hardest line? You could treat everyone amicably until proven otherwise.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  I was just expanding on how ICE seems to implement its "one way to enforce the law". They catch and detain people. Sometimes, some of the people with jobs, homes, families —something to lose— get bail after a hearing, but they only account for ~50% of ICE detainees. When you also factor that the average ICE detention is over 50 days, many of the people who attain bail, are only doing so after many weeks in prison. I'm not saying you agree with that, but you seemed to be [at least partially] rebutting the previous comment. I think this case, and many like it could be dealt with that don't involve being kidnapped at the border. Either just rebuffing their entry, or trusting them enough and allowing them to return home via an internal airport if they already have a return ticket. Or even just trusting people until they've committed a crime. Many people with border issues are merely suspected that they might be intending to work, intending to stay.
  - necovek 2y ago
    What do you do in this particular case? This person was at a land crossing between Canada and US and Canada already denied entry first. I am pretty sure the law does not have an option of "be escorted to the nearest international airport/exit at deportee's cost", but in this case, having an option to leave yourself in 48h or face even harsher bans would have likely worked.

necovek 2y ago

Who said anything about taking the hardest line? You could treat everyone amicably until proven otherwise.

oliwarner 2y ago
I was just expanding on how ICE seems to implement its "one way to enforce the law". They catch and detain people. Sometimes, some of the people with jobs, homes, families —something to lose— get bail after a hearing, but they only account for ~50% of ICE detainees. When you also factor that the average ICE detention is over 50 days, many of the people who attain bail, are only doing so after many weeks in prison. I'm not saying you agree with that, but you seemed to be [at least partially] rebutting the previous comment. I think this case, and many like it could be dealt with that don't involve being kidnapped at the border. Either just rebuffing their entry, or trusting them enough and allowing them to return home via an internal airport if they already have a return ticket. Or even just trusting people until they've committed a crime. Many people with border issues are merely suspected that they might be intending to work, intending to stay.
- necovek 2y ago
  What do you do in this particular case? This person was at a land crossing between Canada and US and Canada already denied entry first. I am pretty sure the law does not have an option of "be escorted to the nearest international airport/exit at deportee's cost", but in this case, having an option to leave yourself in 48h or face even harsher bans would have likely worked.