5 ms·

We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not coope

We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not cooperate with the federal government regarding immigration, meaning that anyone in these cities who interacts with the police or justice system (generally speaking, in most cases) will not be reported for being in the country without documentation. This means that the federal government has fewer means of detaining individuals without documentation in a safe manner, even those convicted of serious crimes. We see the result of these policies now.

malnourish 1y ago
Is that supposed to absolve the methods ICE uses in those places?
jonstewart 1y ago
That’s a nonsequitur. My neighborhood in DC, with high immigrant population, has a lower crime than Capitol Hill, with a far lower immigrant population. DC has a lower crime rate than the places that are sending federal agents here.
soganess 1y ago
NO we shouldn't. You are defending playground rules "why are you making me punch you" with people's lives.
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  Detaining and deporting individuals who are in a foreign (to them) country without documentation is not "punching them".
  - soganess 1y ago
    "Why are you making me punch you" is a stand-in for the kind of broken logic a child uses on a playground. It isn't about actually punching people (although many have been assualted by ICE). Instead, it is about deploying maliciously faulty logic in defense of bad action. Think of it as a cousin to the "he's no angel" style defense of bad acts.
    - Gabriel54 1y ago
      Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.
      - soganess 1y ago
        Governments don't have rights. They didn't spring fully formed from the wombs of other governments without a say in the matter. They have privileges. Provisional privileges derived from the people (or at least that is what some very drunk men in wigs seemed to imply). I don't like it when my government uses dressed-up faux authority (DHS just issues itself administrative "warrants") as the basis for assaulting people. Seems pretty cut-and-dry wrong. And as responses go, really lopsided. So here I am... making a fuss about it.
      - curionymous 1y ago
        I mean detaining jews were also "legal" at one point in time. So, let's just base our morals on what's legal and defend people who abuse the laws to do more heinous stuff, so we can hide behind "Generally I'm against it, but it's legal, so nothing wrong is going on here". That'll surely make things work out great. right?
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >That'll surely make things work out great. right? Yep. I'm not sure why we're even bothering with deportations. Just shoot 'em in the head and grind them up for fertilizer and pig/chicken feed. And if a few hundred thousand citizens get caught up in that, it's no big deal. They wouldn't have been involved if they didn't look like illegals, right? Besides, folks like me (with the map of Ireland all over my face) won't get caught up in that. So why should I care? Yeah, why bother deporting them. Shooting them is quicker and cheaper. We could save even more money by converting warehouses to gas folks and then we can cremate them and/or use them as agricultural inputs. Easy peasy. I mean, it's not like they're human or anything. My god! They're criminals, every last one of them! Rapists, killers, gang bangers. If they weren't subhuman, we wouldn't need to treat them like this. But they're not like us decent, hard working people. They're evil, twisted murderers, just like the pedophile demonrats who murdered all the ICE folks during the Obama and Biden administrations. Both Biden and Obama just sent the Marines in to ICE offices and killed them all dead! So it's perfectly fine to do that to all the brown^W illegal people too, right? I certainly won't have to worry about it, nor will the other white^W real Americans. USA! USA! USA!
  - text0404 1y ago
    Punching them actually is "punching them." And these "agents" are basically roving patrols which target and violently detain people based on skin color. These aren't normal enforcement operations, they're intended to be cruel and violent and deprive everyone of their rights. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-masked-agents https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-maske...
mananaysiempre 1y ago
The results of the opposite of these policies (as practiced by many other countries) are, generally speaking, worse. Undocumented immigrants are necessarily an economic underclass, but whether they will be a lawless underclass is a deliberate choice that pretty much entirely boils down to whether you make it unsafe for them to turn to the police. (I mean, the first part, creating an underclass at all, is also a deliberate choice—that of having immigration laws of the post-WW2 kind—but any alternatives seem to have been thoroughly pushed out of the Overton window.)
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  Can you name another country in which I can enter without inspection, commit a crime, and then be released, all without having anyone ask, "what is your basis for being in this country"?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Argentina. Possibly Brazil. (Kurdish / KRG) Iraq released me as an illegal after the cops decided they liked me, they even gave me a police card in case I ran into further trouble. Kurdish part of Syria will not check either, they're 'stateless' people so see such enforcement as tyrannical. Most ethnic enclaves of Lebanon would similarly work, particularly if you are Druze or something. Also in Argentina you can arrive, on day 1 file court case for citizenship, which bars deportation. Then stall case for 2 years until you meet criteria. I personally have seen court case documents that did this successfully for criminal who arrived with fake passport.
    - Gabriel54 1y ago
      So should we model our immigration system on that of those countries? My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have. Syria and Iraq (to name two of your examples) are certainly not what I would describe as countries based on rule of law. As you yourself point out, in Iraq the police liked you, so they let you go. I do not want to see such a system in the USA.
safety1st 1y ago
This situation in and of itself is very unique and American. No one seems to be happy about it, but this is separation of powers playing out - in how many countries out there will you find states that actively obstruct federal law enforcement because that's what the people in that state voted for, versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for? Well when they're worked up enough Americans will do just that. Personally I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this, yes it's a mess, but I'm not at all convinced we need more consolidation of power just because of that. I'm DEFINITELY not convinced that one side or the other has what it takes to permanently govern everything and always get their way. The same general principles are at work when it comes to the legalization of weed, with lots of little details being different of course.
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.
- idlewan 1y ago
  > ... versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for Are we talking about a different country than the USA? There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cast-us-presidential-elections/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...) So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.

malnourish 1y ago

Is that supposed to absolve the methods ICE uses in those places?

jonstewart 1y ago

That’s a nonsequitur. My neighborhood in DC, with high immigrant population, has a lower crime than Capitol Hill, with a far lower immigrant population. DC has a lower crime rate than the places that are sending federal agents here.

soganess 1y ago

NO we shouldn't. You are defending playground rules "why are you making me punch you" with people's lives.

Gabriel54 1y ago
Detaining and deporting individuals who are in a foreign (to them) country without documentation is not "punching them".
- soganess 1y ago
  "Why are you making me punch you" is a stand-in for the kind of broken logic a child uses on a playground. It isn't about actually punching people (although many have been assualted by ICE). Instead, it is about deploying maliciously faulty logic in defense of bad action. Think of it as a cousin to the "he's no angel" style defense of bad acts.
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.
    - soganess 1y ago
      Governments don't have rights. They didn't spring fully formed from the wombs of other governments without a say in the matter. They have privileges. Provisional privileges derived from the people (or at least that is what some very drunk men in wigs seemed to imply). I don't like it when my government uses dressed-up faux authority (DHS just issues itself administrative "warrants") as the basis for assaulting people. Seems pretty cut-and-dry wrong. And as responses go, really lopsided. So here I am... making a fuss about it.
    - curionymous 1y ago
      I mean detaining jews were also "legal" at one point in time. So, let's just base our morals on what's legal and defend people who abuse the laws to do more heinous stuff, so we can hide behind "Generally I'm against it, but it's legal, so nothing wrong is going on here". That'll surely make things work out great. right?
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >That'll surely make things work out great. right? Yep. I'm not sure why we're even bothering with deportations. Just shoot 'em in the head and grind them up for fertilizer and pig/chicken feed. And if a few hundred thousand citizens get caught up in that, it's no big deal. They wouldn't have been involved if they didn't look like illegals, right? Besides, folks like me (with the map of Ireland all over my face) won't get caught up in that. So why should I care? Yeah, why bother deporting them. Shooting them is quicker and cheaper. We could save even more money by converting warehouses to gas folks and then we can cremate them and/or use them as agricultural inputs. Easy peasy. I mean, it's not like they're human or anything. My god! They're criminals, every last one of them! Rapists, killers, gang bangers. If they weren't subhuman, we wouldn't need to treat them like this. But they're not like us decent, hard working people. They're evil, twisted murderers, just like the pedophile demonrats who murdered all the ICE folks during the Obama and Biden administrations. Both Biden and Obama just sent the Marines in to ICE offices and killed them all dead! So it's perfectly fine to do that to all the brown^W illegal people too, right? I certainly won't have to worry about it, nor will the other white^W real Americans. USA! USA! USA!
- text0404 1y ago
  Punching them actually is "punching them." And these "agents" are basically roving patrols which target and violently detain people based on skin color. These aren't normal enforcement operations, they're intended to be cruel and violent and deprive everyone of their rights. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-masked-agents https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-maske...

mananaysiempre 1y ago

The results of the opposite of these policies (as practiced by many other countries) are, generally speaking, worse. Undocumented immigrants are necessarily an economic underclass, but whether they will be a lawless underclass is a deliberate choice that pretty much entirely boils down to whether you make it unsafe for them to turn to the police. (I mean, the first part, creating an underclass at all, is also a deliberate choice—that of having immigration laws of the post-WW2 kind—but any alternatives seem to have been thoroughly pushed out of the Overton window.)

Gabriel54 1y ago
Can you name another country in which I can enter without inspection, commit a crime, and then be released, all without having anyone ask, "what is your basis for being in this country"?
- mothballed 1y ago
  Argentina. Possibly Brazil. (Kurdish / KRG) Iraq released me as an illegal after the cops decided they liked me, they even gave me a police card in case I ran into further trouble. Kurdish part of Syria will not check either, they're 'stateless' people so see such enforcement as tyrannical. Most ethnic enclaves of Lebanon would similarly work, particularly if you are Druze or something. Also in Argentina you can arrive, on day 1 file court case for citizenship, which bars deportation. Then stall case for 2 years until you meet criteria. I personally have seen court case documents that did this successfully for criminal who arrived with fake passport.
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    So should we model our immigration system on that of those countries? My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have. Syria and Iraq (to name two of your examples) are certainly not what I would describe as countries based on rule of law. As you yourself point out, in Iraq the police liked you, so they let you go. I do not want to see such a system in the USA.

safety1st 1y ago

This situation in and of itself is very unique and American. No one seems to be happy about it, but this is separation of powers playing out - in how many countries out there will you find states that actively obstruct federal law enforcement because that's what the people in that state voted for, versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for? Well when they're worked up enough Americans will do just that. Personally I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this, yes it's a mess, but I'm not at all convinced we need more consolidation of power just because of that. I'm DEFINITELY not convinced that one side or the other has what it takes to permanently govern everything and always get their way. The same general principles are at work when it comes to the legalization of weed, with lots of little details being different of course.

Gabriel54 1y ago
I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.
idlewan 1y ago
> ... versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for Are we talking about a different country than the USA? There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cast-us-presidential-elections/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...) So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.