5 ms·

OP mentions US citizens being detained. Commenter is wondering how other US citizens supporting such activities would feel if their family was detained similarl

OP mentions US citizens being detained. Commenter is wondering how other US citizens supporting such activities would feel if their family was detained similarly. Unless you’re talking about citizens of another country that are in favor of these deportations, your comment is plainly illogical.

lurk2 1y ago
[flagged]
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >The number of times this has happened has not been 0, but in terms of documented instances, you're not talking about a very large group of people. "you're not talking about a very large group of people"? Does that make it acceptable? If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared? That's not a rhetorical question.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared? I didn’t articulate that properly. There have probably been a non-zero number of illegal detentions, and a few instances (only about a dozen that I’m aware of, most of those preceding the present administration) where citizens have been deported. The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0, but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely.
    - ozozozd 1y ago
      Ok. Thanks for clarifying that in your view it’s worth deporting a few citizens to a prison in another country so that we can deport folks at Home Depot parking lots etc.
      - lurk2 11mo ago
        You’re misconstruing what I’ve said. I would direct you to the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - nobody9999 11mo ago
      >but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely. Who said anything about that? As I pointed out in another comment, the Biden administration deported more folks in four years than Obama and Trump did in twelve. And he did so without masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, dragging them out of their cars and abducting them off the street, while lying that it was the abducted citizen who caused the ruckus. And Biden did so without those same masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, then shooting them multiple times, lying about the circumstances and destroying evidence about it. No one, other than you, said anything about "abolishing immigration enforcement entirely." But we certainly don't need masked thugs with a budget larger than the Military budgets of all but three nations to do so. As the last 250 years have shown. All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? Okay. Let's start with you and your family. What's that? That's not what you meant? You mean you think it's okay as long as it's not you?
      - lurk2 11mo ago
        > All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote: > The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0 You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil, rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen. We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...

lurk2 1y ago

[flagged]

nobody9999 1y ago
>The number of times this has happened has not been 0, but in terms of documented instances, you're not talking about a very large group of people. "you're not talking about a very large group of people"? Does that make it acceptable? If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared? That's not a rhetorical question.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared? I didn’t articulate that properly. There have probably been a non-zero number of illegal detentions, and a few instances (only about a dozen that I’m aware of, most of those preceding the present administration) where citizens have been deported. The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0, but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely.
  - ozozozd 1y ago
    Ok. Thanks for clarifying that in your view it’s worth deporting a few citizens to a prison in another country so that we can deport folks at Home Depot parking lots etc.
    - lurk2 11mo ago
      You’re misconstruing what I’ve said. I would direct you to the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nobody9999 11mo ago
    >but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely. Who said anything about that? As I pointed out in another comment, the Biden administration deported more folks in four years than Obama and Trump did in twelve. And he did so without masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, dragging them out of their cars and abducting them off the street, while lying that it was the abducted citizen who caused the ruckus. And Biden did so without those same masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, then shooting them multiple times, lying about the circumstances and destroying evidence about it. No one, other than you, said anything about "abolishing immigration enforcement entirely." But we certainly don't need masked thugs with a budget larger than the Military budgets of all but three nations to do so. As the last 250 years have shown. All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? Okay. Let's start with you and your family. What's that? That's not what you meant? You mean you think it's okay as long as it's not you?
    - lurk2 11mo ago
      > All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote: > The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0 You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil, rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen. We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...