3 ms·

> 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 n

by 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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_...
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts by ICE that you are willing to tolerate. And would that number change if you and/or your family are among those?[1] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. Because we're supposed to live in a society of laws, not unaccountable, masked thugs who can act with impunity -- regardless of the goal. The ends do not justify the means. Want to be "tough" on those who have committed a civil infraction (overstaying their visas -- the vast majority of those who aren't here on valid documents) and on those who evaded border security (a misdemeanor). Fine. Then do so without harassing, beating and murdering folks, including those who don't have valid residence documents/visas -- as the penalty for such things is a fine and a short jail stay, then removal to their home country -- and certainly not creating a "papers please"[0] police state in our free and open society. That's not the society I've lived in for more than half a century. Nor is it one I wish to live in. Why do you want to live in such a society? No. Really. I'd like to understand why you want to live in a police state. Do tell. >Given that a system is necessary, Which system is "necessary"? We never (for 250 years) had to have masked thugs maiming, murdering and disappearing my fellow Americans before. Why is that? Because it's illegal and an explicit violation of Constitutional rights. Why is it "necessary" now? [0] So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse? [1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.

by lurk2 1y ago

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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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_...
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts by ICE that you are willing to tolerate. And would that number change if you and/or your family are among those?[1] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. Because we're supposed to live in a society of laws, not unaccountable, masked thugs who can act with impunity -- regardless of the goal. The ends do not justify the means. Want to be "tough" on those who have committed a civil infraction (overstaying their visas -- the vast majority of those who aren't here on valid documents) and on those who evaded border security (a misdemeanor). Fine. Then do so without harassing, beating and murdering folks, including those who don't have valid residence documents/visas -- as the penalty for such things is a fine and a short jail stay, then removal to their home country -- and certainly not creating a "papers please"[0] police state in our free and open society. That's not the society I've lived in for more than half a century. Nor is it one I wish to live in. Why do you want to live in such a society? No. Really. I'd like to understand why you want to live in a police state. Do tell. >Given that a system is necessary, Which system is "necessary"? We never (for 250 years) had to have masked thugs maiming, murdering and disappearing my fellow Americans before. Why is that? Because it's illegal and an explicit violation of Constitutional rights. Why is it "necessary" now? [0] So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse? [1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.