4 ms·

Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this d

by lmm 1y ago

Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.

acdha 1y ago
You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. It’s exactly hard to find examples of cops who investigated real crimes and pulled ICE in when they realized the perp wasn’t here legally.
- lmm 1y ago
  > You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
  - acdha 1y ago
    > Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough You’re arguing that your personal opinion is “the will of the electorate”. The policies directing local police to focus on crime affecting their communities instead of shadowing federal immigration enforcement weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives. California’s sanctuary laws are the subject of considerable mythology but they had no effect on crime rates according to actual studies because they don’t prohibit cops from working with law enforcement for cases involving people who pose a risk to their communities. They can’t hold people without cause or use a parking ticket to get someone deported but there’s no problem cooperating with federal law enforcement to get rid of a robber, killer, rapist, etc. – the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers. https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-state/ https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-...
    - lmm 1y ago
      > weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Democracy means going along with popular decisions even if you disagree, not finding tricks to undermine what was nationally agreed because your corner of the country doesn't like it. > the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers. Most of the electorate wants all illegal immigrants deported, not just the ones caught committing violent crimes.
      - acdha 1y ago
        > Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment. I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
        lmm 1y ago
        > Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. A path, perhaps. Not carte blanche. > Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment. Nah. That's at most a convenient fig-leaf for their motivations. > I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government. You suspect wrong. And I'm not saying there's no case where the government should decide they know better than the people, but when they oppose the will of the people they should do it openly and directly, not with procedural rules-lawyering and disingenuous "tee-hee we're not actually opposing the law we're just prioritising other laws" arguments.
NemoNobody 1y ago
You are only fine if everyone is fine. If it can happen to a brown person, it can happen to you - maybe have a little self interest, or perhaps consider how boring America would be without immigrants and black people - that's kinda where all our culture comes from, in our melting pot everything blends together.
- lmm 1y ago
  Nice try. I'm an immigrant and a minority myself, not that people like you ever actually care about supporting people like me.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Great, so am I (different country though). So, what are your thoughts about ICE going after immigrants who think they're legal but didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's on their paperwork? Because that is in the news as well.
    - lmm 1y ago
      I think that, much like those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable, those who make decent, reasonable immigration enforcement impossible make vicious immigration enforcement inevitable. No doubt the pendulum will swing too hard and too far, and ordinary decent people will pay the price. But when one side is even now still taking the position that you can't deport people who just walked across the border with no intention of ever following the legitimate process, I can't blame the other side for sending in the goon squad to crack heads.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        > No doubt the pendulum will swing too hard and too far, and ordinary decent people will pay the price. It has swung, and they are *already paying* the price. That's the question. > I can't blame the other side for sending in the goon squad to crack heads. Even when it's your own head? Given the complexity of the system, it's implausible that any immigrant, including you (or I in Germany) have done everything perfectly. But it's worse than that, as people in the USA are currently facing removal for writing things on the internet which are theoretically constitutionally protected free speech. And that's without any discussion about why nobody in power did anything about what Biden's admin said was about 11 million undocumented migrants: The reason being the US economy, and of main importance the food supply, actually depends on their labour — depending on how fast they get removed, the USA would be looking a 50% supply cut in perishable hand-picked crops and dairy (if done instantly) to a mere 20% price inflation (if done over a few years). Similar for construction industry, but that's less critical than, you know, eating.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
> made this defensible That's like saying vigilantism is defensible. I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
- lmm 1y ago
  > That's like saying vigilantism is defensible. When traditional law enforcement fails to the point that the rule of law completely breaks down, vigilantism becomes defensible. > I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases. I don't like it, but this is the flipsides of decades of insisting that illegal immigration isn't a crime and illegal immigrants aren't criminals.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    > the rule of law completely breaks down pretty hard to argue that the rule of law as completely broken down in the US > ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases yeah, you're probably right about that though I think it's more "some" cases than "many" (they can't enter your house to search for someone without a warrant); due process still holds though
insane_dreamer 1y ago
> refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law the main reason why immigration law has not been enforced is because a large number of US businesses (farms, factories, etc.) depend on those illegal immigrants as their workforce if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals -- which would also stem the tide of people coming into the US -- but that hasn't been done because immigrants -- regardless of their official status -- are a net positive for the US economy
- lmm 1y ago
  > if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals I'm all for that (although California seemingly isn't, given that they make it illegal for those businesses to use e-Verify in most cases). I don't see any contradiction between doing that and continuing regular immigration enforcement. I certainly don't see how you can argue that we should stop regular immigration enforcement until we've done this new thing.

by lmm 1y ago

Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.

acdha 1y ago

You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. It’s exactly hard to find examples of cops who investigated real crimes and pulled ICE in when they realized the perp wasn’t here legally.

lmm 1y ago
> You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
- acdha 1y ago
  > Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough You’re arguing that your personal opinion is “the will of the electorate”. The policies directing local police to focus on crime affecting their communities instead of shadowing federal immigration enforcement weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives. California’s sanctuary laws are the subject of considerable mythology but they had no effect on crime rates according to actual studies because they don’t prohibit cops from working with law enforcement for cases involving people who pose a risk to their communities. They can’t hold people without cause or use a parking ticket to get someone deported but there’s no problem cooperating with federal law enforcement to get rid of a robber, killer, rapist, etc. – the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers. https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-state/ https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-...
  - lmm 1y ago
    > weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Democracy means going along with popular decisions even if you disagree, not finding tricks to undermine what was nationally agreed because your corner of the country doesn't like it. > the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers. Most of the electorate wants all illegal immigrants deported, not just the ones caught committing violent crimes.
    - acdha 1y ago
      > Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment. I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
      - lmm 1y ago
        > Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. A path, perhaps. Not carte blanche. > Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment. Nah. That's at most a convenient fig-leaf for their motivations. > I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government. You suspect wrong. And I'm not saying there's no case where the government should decide they know better than the people, but when they oppose the will of the people they should do it openly and directly, not with procedural rules-lawyering and disingenuous "tee-hee we're not actually opposing the law we're just prioritising other laws" arguments.

NemoNobody 1y ago

You are only fine if everyone is fine. If it can happen to a brown person, it can happen to you - maybe have a little self interest, or perhaps consider how boring America would be without immigrants and black people - that's kinda where all our culture comes from, in our melting pot everything blends together.

lmm 1y ago
Nice try. I'm an immigrant and a minority myself, not that people like you ever actually care about supporting people like me.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Great, so am I (different country though). So, what are your thoughts about ICE going after immigrants who think they're legal but didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's on their paperwork? Because that is in the news as well.
  - lmm 1y ago
    I think that, much like those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable, those who make decent, reasonable immigration enforcement impossible make vicious immigration enforcement inevitable. No doubt the pendulum will swing too hard and too far, and ordinary decent people will pay the price. But when one side is even now still taking the position that you can't deport people who just walked across the border with no intention of ever following the legitimate process, I can't blame the other side for sending in the goon squad to crack heads.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      > No doubt the pendulum will swing too hard and too far, and ordinary decent people will pay the price. It has swung, and they are *already paying* the price. That's the question. > I can't blame the other side for sending in the goon squad to crack heads. Even when it's your own head? Given the complexity of the system, it's implausible that any immigrant, including you (or I in Germany) have done everything perfectly. But it's worse than that, as people in the USA are currently facing removal for writing things on the internet which are theoretically constitutionally protected free speech. And that's without any discussion about why nobody in power did anything about what Biden's admin said was about 11 million undocumented migrants: The reason being the US economy, and of main importance the food supply, actually depends on their labour — depending on how fast they get removed, the USA would be looking a 50% supply cut in perishable hand-picked crops and dairy (if done instantly) to a mere 20% price inflation (if done over a few years). Similar for construction industry, but that's less critical than, you know, eating.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

> made this defensible That's like saying vigilantism is defensible. I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law

lmm 1y ago
> That's like saying vigilantism is defensible. When traditional law enforcement fails to the point that the rule of law completely breaks down, vigilantism becomes defensible. > I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases. I don't like it, but this is the flipsides of decades of insisting that illegal immigration isn't a crime and illegal immigrants aren't criminals.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  > the rule of law completely breaks down pretty hard to argue that the rule of law as completely broken down in the US > ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases yeah, you're probably right about that though I think it's more "some" cases than "many" (they can't enter your house to search for someone without a warrant); due process still holds though

insane_dreamer 1y ago

> refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law the main reason why immigration law has not been enforced is because a large number of US businesses (farms, factories, etc.) depend on those illegal immigrants as their workforce if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals -- which would also stem the tide of people coming into the US -- but that hasn't been done because immigrants -- regardless of their official status -- are a net positive for the US economy

lmm 1y ago
> if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals I'm all for that (although California seemingly isn't, given that they make it illegal for those businesses to use e-Verify in most cases). I don't see any contradiction between doing that and continuing regular immigration enforcement. I certainly don't see how you can argue that we should stop regular immigration enforcement until we've done this new thing.