3 ms·

It is the "they are terror group kind of like Gestapo" part. It is the "murder and then celebrate murder" part. The "kidnap people, beat them, throw them out" p

by watwut 10mo ago

It is the "they are terror group kind of like Gestapo" part. It is the "murder and then celebrate murder" part. The "kidnap people, beat them, throw them out" part. It is the "run out of the car, kidnap citizen" part. It is the "throw flashbang and teargas on law obeying people" part. It is the "blind a legal protester". With honorable mention of beating a female woman for going to doctor. It is also the "their violence is staggering" and "they operations have no respect to law" and "they actually intentionally terrorize citizens too" parts. All mentioned in article and well documented at this point.

final_aeon 10mo ago
[flagged]
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  This seems like an attempt to avoid the argument rather than engage with it, because creating an imaginary world which we currently don't live in has nothing to do with the reality we're currently dealing with. The reality being that one informs the other. I know people that would agree in regular situations that we need some enforcement of immigration law. But this is not a regular situation, and when you have an agency tasked with 'enforcing' immigration law who is not enforcing the law at all and in fact violating the law, people question why said immigration laws and agency exists in the first place.
  - final_aeon 10mo ago
    [flagged]
- JohnFen 10mo ago
  > It seems that critics oppose the law itself I think that the fact that both Biden and Obama were finding and deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers and there wasn't this kind of outcry indicates that it's not the law itself that people are angry about. It's the cruel, brutal, poorly-targeted, and lawless tactics that are currently being used that are the problem.
  - final_aeon 10mo ago
    It’s misleading to treat record deportations as evidence of restriction. Both Obama and Biden presided over record illegal inflows, and deportations rose largely because the pool of removable people grew faster than enforcement capacity. Inflow dominated outflow, and policy choices further reduced future removability, so net illegal presence increased despite high deportation counts.
    - JohnFen 10mo ago
      That's unrelated to the point that I was making. My point is that they were engaging in record deportations without causing a great deal of upset, and that indicates that it's not the enforcement of the law that people are objecting to now, it's the manner of the enforcement.
- watwut 10mo ago
  > If ICE were doing exactly what its mandate says on paper (enforcing immigration law and deporting people who are in the country illegally) would you still say the same thing? They are not doing what the mandate says on the paper. So, the question is moot. If the "paper" said, "ICE is allowed to use arbitrary force and abuse" I would still call them Gestapo, because Gestapo was also legal. > It seems that critics oppose the law itself, but then frame the argument as “ICE is bad because it breaks the law,” rather than acknowledging that the real disagreement is over whether those laws should exist at all. This is bad faith claim. It is possible to disagree about multiple things at the same time. It is possible to disagree about the law. And simultaneously find ICE completely morally depraved and violent, just as their defenders. In fact, one can agree about the law and still think that government force killing people and being violent against opposition is a bad thing. So very openly: I think that stealing from shops should be illegal. I think that police beating people for stealing would be wrong and murdering people who oppose the "beat people who steal" law also wrong.
  - final_aeon 10mo ago
    There's nothing bad faith here, it was a simple question. Sounds like you aren't even sure whether the law is good or bad "[I don't care what the paper says]". You hate ice because they seem like they're Gestapo. Then maybe next time, don't appeal to the law to argue "ICE is illegal"?

by watwut 10mo ago

final_aeon 10mo ago

[flagged]

fzeroracer 10mo ago
This seems like an attempt to avoid the argument rather than engage with it, because creating an imaginary world which we currently don't live in has nothing to do with the reality we're currently dealing with. The reality being that one informs the other. I know people that would agree in regular situations that we need some enforcement of immigration law. But this is not a regular situation, and when you have an agency tasked with 'enforcing' immigration law who is not enforcing the law at all and in fact violating the law, people question why said immigration laws and agency exists in the first place.
- final_aeon 10mo ago
  [flagged]
JohnFen 10mo ago
> It seems that critics oppose the law itself I think that the fact that both Biden and Obama were finding and deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers and there wasn't this kind of outcry indicates that it's not the law itself that people are angry about. It's the cruel, brutal, poorly-targeted, and lawless tactics that are currently being used that are the problem.
- final_aeon 10mo ago
  It’s misleading to treat record deportations as evidence of restriction. Both Obama and Biden presided over record illegal inflows, and deportations rose largely because the pool of removable people grew faster than enforcement capacity. Inflow dominated outflow, and policy choices further reduced future removability, so net illegal presence increased despite high deportation counts.
  - JohnFen 10mo ago
    That's unrelated to the point that I was making. My point is that they were engaging in record deportations without causing a great deal of upset, and that indicates that it's not the enforcement of the law that people are objecting to now, it's the manner of the enforcement.
watwut 10mo ago
> If ICE were doing exactly what its mandate says on paper (enforcing immigration law and deporting people who are in the country illegally) would you still say the same thing? They are not doing what the mandate says on the paper. So, the question is moot. If the "paper" said, "ICE is allowed to use arbitrary force and abuse" I would still call them Gestapo, because Gestapo was also legal. > It seems that critics oppose the law itself, but then frame the argument as “ICE is bad because it breaks the law,” rather than acknowledging that the real disagreement is over whether those laws should exist at all. This is bad faith claim. It is possible to disagree about multiple things at the same time. It is possible to disagree about the law. And simultaneously find ICE completely morally depraved and violent, just as their defenders. In fact, one can agree about the law and still think that government force killing people and being violent against opposition is a bad thing. So very openly: I think that stealing from shops should be illegal. I think that police beating people for stealing would be wrong and murdering people who oppose the "beat people who steal" law also wrong.
- final_aeon 10mo ago
  There's nothing bad faith here, it was a simple question. Sounds like you aren't even sure whether the law is good or bad "[I don't care what the paper says]". You hate ice because they seem like they're Gestapo. Then maybe next time, don't appeal to the law to argue "ICE is illegal"?