4 ms·

Targeting "innocent" people is the point. It makes sure that nobody wants to come in. >which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been h

Targeting "innocent" people is the point. It makes sure that nobody wants to come in. >which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been high-priority) in the country longer. I agree. The processing should be much faster. The detentions are so stupid, just get them on a plane.

estearum 10mo ago
> targeting innocent people is the point > the processing should be much faster And what do you call it if you slow down the processing, fill it with innocent people, and also get yourself bogged down in thousands of extremely costly (time, money, and focus) civil rights lawsuits? Answer: a very stupid policy.
- blell 10mo ago
  Why did you remove the quotes around the word "innocent" that implied sarcasm? You can't quote things and modify the contents.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Perhaps these people committed crimes or administrative violations, perhaps not, but until they've been determined as such, they're correctly called innocent with no quotes. GP is speaking specifically about that subset of people when they use the word innocent.
    - constantcrying 10mo ago
      >In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. Total nonsense. This only applies to the state. Individuals are totally free to believe that a person not convicted of a crime or even proclaimed innocent by the state, is in fact not innocent. If your legalistic fiction of innocence was correct, then individuals would have to believe that the law is the infallible representation of morality, which is an abhorrent claim. What I meant by the quotes around innocent is that the state has not yet deemed them criminal, but I disagree with the state on that assessment.
      - estearum 10mo ago
        Is deportation a state action or no?
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        estearum 10mo ago
        I just cannot imagine how gobsmackingly dumb one has to be to consciously advocate for a government unrestrained by laws. Just true mud-farmer level intellect.
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        I am sorry, but "you are dumb" is not an argument. I just do not care about the law at all+. Far too often have I seen justice abused in the name of the law. Any appeal to some supposed legality just rings entirely hollow. Either the government acts justly and I support their actions or it acts unjustly and I will oppose that action. Whatever some piece of paper says or does not say I do not mind. + Of course I care about it in so far I have to understand how getting into conflict with the prevalent interpretation of it will have consequence for me or my family or my friends. I pay my taxes, after all.
        estearum 10mo ago
        Yeah, this is the opinion of a very stupid person. Have a good day :)
      - ozozozd 10mo ago
        You disagree in a “none of us are innocent” kind of way? I struggle to see how you might know so much about these people - whose names we don’t even know - that you can have an opinion about their innocence. No need to respond if you don’t think you need information to form an opinion. I will assume that.
    - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
      > There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Right, the only crime they committed was entering and remaining in the country illegally. And now they’re facing deportation by this unjust administration.
      - estearum 10mo ago
        There are plenty of people the administration is trying to deport who neither entered nor remained in the country illegally. For example, Rumeysa Ozturk who was arrested for engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech and put into deportation proceedings despite entering the country legally, staying in the country legally, and breaking none of our country's laws.
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        Do you think that such a deportation would make the US more or less appealing for immigration? After all, every immigrant has to suspect that they might become a target of such an enforcement action as well.
        estearum 10mo ago
        Of course it would make the US less appealing, which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations. It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate. Back to your claim about this being an "effective" immigration policy: no it's not.
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        I think it is pretty dishonest how you are asserting that I am making arguments, which I never made. >which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations. >It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate. Completely agree. But I want the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors" even less than the rest. Those groups are actually harder to remove, they often have institutional support in the form of corporations and other associations and might feasibly be positive fiscal contributors. With "the rest" the argument for deportation is far simpler and has far more support in the population. Also my labor competes with the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors", while "the rest" only depresses the wages of the proletariat who now have to compete with black market labor.
- constantcrying 10mo ago
  Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. Right now I think these measures are extremely effective, especially at deterrence and I do not see what your arguments against this being an effective deterrence really is. One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    > One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately. You mean the Constitution's 5th Amendment? No thank you, I'll keep that one around. > Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. A little known fact is that the Constitution is actually meant to make life difficult for the government. It is not up to the rest of us to come up with Constitutionally valid alternatives to the administration's preferred course of action. That's their job.
    - constantcrying 10mo ago
      As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". I just hope that the EU learns how effective immigration deterrence looks and can make the appropriate legal changes, here in Europe we do not have attachments to centuries old legal concepts, so I think this issue just does not appear here. One idea which should be explored, both in the US and the EU, is that all lawsuits against immigration decisions have to be paid, either ongoing or up front, by the person who would be affected by the immigration enforcement.
      - UncleMeat 10mo ago
        > As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". Given that the topic is US immigration policy it sure seems like it is relevant.

estearum 10mo ago

> targeting innocent people is the point > the processing should be much faster And what do you call it if you slow down the processing, fill it with innocent people, and also get yourself bogged down in thousands of extremely costly (time, money, and focus) civil rights lawsuits? Answer: a very stupid policy.

blell 10mo ago
Why did you remove the quotes around the word "innocent" that implied sarcasm? You can't quote things and modify the contents.
- estearum 10mo ago
  In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Perhaps these people committed crimes or administrative violations, perhaps not, but until they've been determined as such, they're correctly called innocent with no quotes. GP is speaking specifically about that subset of people when they use the word innocent.
  - constantcrying 10mo ago
    >In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. Total nonsense. This only applies to the state. Individuals are totally free to believe that a person not convicted of a crime or even proclaimed innocent by the state, is in fact not innocent. If your legalistic fiction of innocence was correct, then individuals would have to believe that the law is the infallible representation of morality, which is an abhorrent claim. What I meant by the quotes around innocent is that the state has not yet deemed them criminal, but I disagree with the state on that assessment.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      Is deportation a state action or no?
      - constantcrying 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        estearum 10mo ago
        I just cannot imagine how gobsmackingly dumb one has to be to consciously advocate for a government unrestrained by laws. Just true mud-farmer level intellect.
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        I am sorry, but "you are dumb" is not an argument. I just do not care about the law at all+. Far too often have I seen justice abused in the name of the law. Any appeal to some supposed legality just rings entirely hollow. Either the government acts justly and I support their actions or it acts unjustly and I will oppose that action. Whatever some piece of paper says or does not say I do not mind. + Of course I care about it in so far I have to understand how getting into conflict with the prevalent interpretation of it will have consequence for me or my family or my friends. I pay my taxes, after all.
        estearum 10mo ago
        Yeah, this is the opinion of a very stupid person. Have a good day :)
    - ozozozd 10mo ago
      You disagree in a “none of us are innocent” kind of way? I struggle to see how you might know so much about these people - whose names we don’t even know - that you can have an opinion about their innocence. No need to respond if you don’t think you need information to form an opinion. I will assume that.
  - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
    > There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Right, the only crime they committed was entering and remaining in the country illegally. And now they’re facing deportation by this unjust administration.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      There are plenty of people the administration is trying to deport who neither entered nor remained in the country illegally. For example, Rumeysa Ozturk who was arrested for engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech and put into deportation proceedings despite entering the country legally, staying in the country legally, and breaking none of our country's laws.
      - constantcrying 10mo ago
        Do you think that such a deportation would make the US more or less appealing for immigration? After all, every immigrant has to suspect that they might become a target of such an enforcement action as well.
        estearum 10mo ago
        Of course it would make the US less appealing, which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations. It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate. Back to your claim about this being an "effective" immigration policy: no it's not.
        constantcrying 10mo ago
        I think it is pretty dishonest how you are asserting that I am making arguments, which I never made. >which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations. >It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate. Completely agree. But I want the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors" even less than the rest. Those groups are actually harder to remove, they often have institutional support in the form of corporations and other associations and might feasibly be positive fiscal contributors. With "the rest" the argument for deportation is far simpler and has far more support in the population. Also my labor competes with the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors", while "the rest" only depresses the wages of the proletariat who now have to compete with black market labor.
constantcrying 10mo ago
Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. Right now I think these measures are extremely effective, especially at deterrence and I do not see what your arguments against this being an effective deterrence really is. One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately.
- estearum 10mo ago
  > One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately. You mean the Constitution's 5th Amendment? No thank you, I'll keep that one around. > Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. A little known fact is that the Constitution is actually meant to make life difficult for the government. It is not up to the rest of us to come up with Constitutionally valid alternatives to the administration's preferred course of action. That's their job.
  - constantcrying 10mo ago
    As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". I just hope that the EU learns how effective immigration deterrence looks and can make the appropriate legal changes, here in Europe we do not have attachments to centuries old legal concepts, so I think this issue just does not appear here. One idea which should be explored, both in the US and the EU, is that all lawsuits against immigration decisions have to be paid, either ongoing or up front, by the person who would be affected by the immigration enforcement.
    - UncleMeat 10mo ago
      > As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". Given that the topic is US immigration policy it sure seems like it is relevant.