5 ms·

Fake documents are a problem for immigration enforcement officials. They are a problem that makes immigration enforcement harder, and requires officials to be m

Fake documents are a problem for immigration enforcement officials. They are a problem that makes immigration enforcement harder, and requires officials to be more creative. They are not a problem for me, a legitimate US citizen, such that they require my rights or freedom to be curtailed in any way. And let’s be clear: that’s precisely what TFA is talking about: an unreliable, unauthenticated database that officials will believe over my legitimate and truthful statements of citizenship, and over my legitimate and truthful presentation of US citizenship evidence. As I said in a different comment, we US folks have decided as a society that we don’t want to have mandatory difficult-to-forge national ID. When asked this question democratically, US voters and their representatives have repeatedly* turned down this option and explicitly banned the Federal government from issuing Federal ID cards outside of optional passports for international travel. We made this decision precisely because we distrust the sort of Federal government that would require us to carry that sort of document. There is nothing accidental about this, and you can find explicit statements of this bipartisan consensus all over real Federal legislation; there’s really no possibility that we did this by accident or without due consideration of the tradeoffs. You’re correct that this lack of standardized documentation makes the immigration enforcer’s job harder, since they can’t just force people to produce proof-of-citizenship on demand and they can’t detain US citizens, and they can’t necessarily trust every paper document they’re given. I’m sympathetic! But that’s the tradeoff we’ve made as a society. The answer is not “throw out the rule book and risk depriving citizens of their rights because our job is hard.” The answer is: respect the rules you were given and due the best job you can without depriving US citizens of their rights. And PS this situation is hardly unique: we also make ordinary cops’ jobs harder by requiring them to respect suspects’ civil rights and demanding probable cause to make an arrest. It’s tough! The result there is that cops have to work harder and be smarter; they don’t just get to detain anyone they want just because they might vaguely hypothetically be a criminal.

somenameforme 1y ago
The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. The chances of a citizen being unable to compellingly correct that mistake is very low. The chance of a mismatch on the database is very low. The chance of there being a mismatch that isn't immediately obvious to the ICE officer is astronomically low. And now you need every single one of these events to occur, simultaneously. The chances of this happening is practically zero. And even if somehow this does happen, which it won't, it's at worst a significant inconvenience for the person who somehow managed to win the reverse lottery. Though in this case perhaps it's not even entirely the reverse lottery - because there'd be a big paycheck awaiting them in lawsuits, crowdfunding, media fees, and so on. I simply don't see false positives as a realistic concern here, whatsoever. Going with your analog with the police I'd mention e.g. DNA tests or finger prints. These do have non-zero failure rates, but they're still regularly used to convict people simply because the failure rate is seen as acceptably low. And in this case, the conditional probability we're speaking of is probably even lower, and with much less at stake!
- drewbug01 1y ago
  > The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. You can’t start with this premise, though. Recent rulings allow stops based on “probable cause” such as a combination of “speaks Spanish”, “is brown”, and “is in a place where we think illegal immigrants might be”. So like: any Latino US citizen, who happens to be working someplace like a landscaping company. Or a kitchen. The idea that citizens aren’t likely to be targets is now laughable. And we have ample reporting indicating that in fact, citizens are being detained, for hours and hours (if not longer).
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Low doesn't mean zero, it means low. You might notice I used different terms for the different groupings, with the chance of a citizen being targeted by ICE as the highest overall at "low". ICE has so far deported more than 400,000 illegal aliens. [1] If they were "only" 99% accurate, you'd be able to find thousands of instances where things went wrong. Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances, so it's likely that their overall accuracy is somewhere in the 99.9% to 99.99% range. And as I was demonstrating above, the conditional probabilities required for a false positive from this app mean that it's practical effective accuracy rate will likely be 100%. [1] - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
    - drewbug01 1y ago
      > Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances …based on what, the independent research ProPublica did? DHS doesn’t even keep statistics on how many citizens they detain so I’m not sure we should be assuming the numbers here are that low.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        What I mentioned already. Being incorrectly detained isn't consequence free. People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. And on top of this all immigration enforcement runs contrary to the corporate media's biases. They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. In other words, ICE's errors are highly visible. That my approximation aligns with ProPublica's (which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered) is unsurprising.

somenameforme 1y ago

The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. The chances of a citizen being unable to compellingly correct that mistake is very low. The chance of a mismatch on the database is very low. The chance of there being a mismatch that isn't immediately obvious to the ICE officer is astronomically low. And now you need every single one of these events to occur, simultaneously. The chances of this happening is practically zero. And even if somehow this does happen, which it won't, it's at worst a significant inconvenience for the person who somehow managed to win the reverse lottery. Though in this case perhaps it's not even entirely the reverse lottery - because there'd be a big paycheck awaiting them in lawsuits, crowdfunding, media fees, and so on. I simply don't see false positives as a realistic concern here, whatsoever. Going with your analog with the police I'd mention e.g. DNA tests or finger prints. These do have non-zero failure rates, but they're still regularly used to convict people simply because the failure rate is seen as acceptably low. And in this case, the conditional probability we're speaking of is probably even lower, and with much less at stake!

drewbug01 1y ago
> The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. You can’t start with this premise, though. Recent rulings allow stops based on “probable cause” such as a combination of “speaks Spanish”, “is brown”, and “is in a place where we think illegal immigrants might be”. So like: any Latino US citizen, who happens to be working someplace like a landscaping company. Or a kitchen. The idea that citizens aren’t likely to be targets is now laughable. And we have ample reporting indicating that in fact, citizens are being detained, for hours and hours (if not longer).
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Low doesn't mean zero, it means low. You might notice I used different terms for the different groupings, with the chance of a citizen being targeted by ICE as the highest overall at "low". ICE has so far deported more than 400,000 illegal aliens. [1] If they were "only" 99% accurate, you'd be able to find thousands of instances where things went wrong. Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances, so it's likely that their overall accuracy is somewhere in the 99.9% to 99.99% range. And as I was demonstrating above, the conditional probabilities required for a false positive from this app mean that it's practical effective accuracy rate will likely be 100%. [1] - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
  - drewbug01 1y ago
    > Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances …based on what, the independent research ProPublica did? DHS doesn’t even keep statistics on how many citizens they detain so I’m not sure we should be assuming the numbers here are that low.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      What I mentioned already. Being incorrectly detained isn't consequence free. People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. And on top of this all immigration enforcement runs contrary to the corporate media's biases. They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. In other words, ICE's errors are highly visible. That my approximation aligns with ProPublica's (which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered) is unsurprising.