7 ms·

I am talking about 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II (<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12>).

by db48x 9mo ago

I am talking about 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II (<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12>). This is the law that defines how immigration works in the US, and how illegal aliens are removed. ICE is the Federal agency assigned to the task of locating and removing illegal aliens. Even if you don’t like that illegal aliens are being removed, it is illegal to try to prevent a federal agent from doing just that. Instead you should be trying to change the law so that the job doesn’t exist.

trhway 9mo ago
Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example : (1) Right of counsel The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations. I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally. The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others. We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.
  - reverius42 9mo ago
    I think the two can be called "rule of law" or "rule of men". I would have thought more people would support "rule of law".
    - vintermann 9mo ago
      It was always people who ruled, it's just more apparent when the people who rule are bullies itching for a fight, who care even less about the appearance of consistency. For moral accountability, it should always in the end be "I say", not "the law says". No one should "just be obeying orders", they should make choices they can stand behind on their own judgment, regardless of whether some group of possibly long dead legislators stood behind it or not.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal.
  - trhway 9mo ago
    That is just simply not true as was illustrated by many stories in the news. And in particular why would the ICE then use that checklist - young, Latino, tatoos ... -> gang member to extradite (to Guatemala). And what final order of removal were for example the US citizens picked by ICE subject to?
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?
      - 15155 9mo ago
        Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."
        defrost 9mo ago
        Sure, that happens a lot despite Court orders to the contrary. ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman * https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-recommends-case-wrongly-deported-north-carolina-citizen-go-forward/ https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-rec... Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.
        15155 9mo ago
        How many other developed countries in the world allow tourists to unconditionally birth citizens?
- db48x 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - computerthings 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - trhway 9mo ago
    again, what the law says and what the ICE does is 2 very different things. Otherwise, explain how that law provides for random picking off the street dark skinned people, including citizens, that ICE has been doing.
  - vharuck 9mo ago
    The point of the Executive branch is to decide how to execute the law using limited resources. The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. In the past, AGs used their discretion to target dangerous immigrants and low-hanging fruit. The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.
    - db48x 9mo ago
      > The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. Sadly true. Traditionally most removals happen at the border where illegal aliens are easier to detect and where they can simply deny entry. Biden neglected to do that quite deliberately. He made speeches about it. Trump did increase ICE’s budget though. Anyway, https://www.dhs.gov/wow https://www.dhs.gov/wow has twenty thousand examples of dangerous criminals who were insufficiently targeted by previous administrations if you’re interested. > The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors. This is the stated motive, sure, but the observed motive is different. Any time a “protester” sees what they think is an ICE operation their first actions are to try to save the people ICE is there to arrest. Yelling and blowing whistles to warn illegal aliens that ICE are present is just the start. Those Signal groups were training their members on how to surround officers and wrestle the arrestees away from them. They have no actual care at all for warrants; that’s merely an excuse for lawless behavior.
8note 9mo ago
which part of the immigration code lets ice agents kill citizens?
- zahlman 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
    You can't invoke self-defence against someone filming with an iPhone. Don't be ridiculous. This whole line of argumentation is embarrassing.
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        Does murdering someone who is driving away from you prevent immediate harm to you? Uncontrolled moving vehicles with bricks on the accelerator are very dangerous. Self–defence is extremely limited in scope. Basically, if someone is about to stab you, you can do anything necessary to prevent that stabbing. Self–defence doesn't include that after someone fails to stab you and runs away, you can shoot them while they are running away. It doesn't include revenge. If you shoot someone who fails to stab you and runs away, it is murder like any other shooting. Self–defence doesn't include shooting someone who invades your house and isn't currently trying to hurt you, that is castle doctrine.
        zahlman 9mo ago
        You assume the consequent with your language; a dead person is not necessarily a "brick on the accelerator"; and human reaction time is a thing. Officers are expected to make decisions in the moment that are reasonable given the totality of circumstances up to that point, without the benefit of hindsight. The decision to shoot was clearly made before the SUV could at all be said to be "getting away"; if you're a trained LEO (or even just someone with a firearm and specific self-defense training) you are going to fire multiple shots. Regardless of Good's intent (which is irrelevant to the self-defense case), at the moment the vehicle was put into drive, it was clearly pointed straight at the officer (after straightening out from the first point of the two-point turn) and only began turning later. And she was being counseled to "drive, baby, drive", which does not exactly suggest being careful. The fact that this posed a serious threat meeting the standard for self-defense is pretty easy to argue, especially given that he actually was struck by the vehicle. The left front wheel of the SUV can be seen (in the video from behind) to spin in place for a moment on an icy road; it's unclear exactly what the officer perceived in that moment, but it could very easily be argued that the officer reasonably believed he could prevent the car from moving forward by shooting, and by the time it was moving forward it was too late. Again, human reaction time is a thing.
direwolf20 9mo ago
Can you quote the part of 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II where it says you get to murder everyone you disagree with?

by db48x 9mo ago

trhway 9mo ago

Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example : (1) Right of counsel The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations. I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.

epistasis 9mo ago
There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally. The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others. We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.
- reverius42 9mo ago
  I think the two can be called "rule of law" or "rule of men". I would have thought more people would support "rule of law".
  - vintermann 9mo ago
    It was always people who ruled, it's just more apparent when the people who rule are bullies itching for a fight, who care even less about the appearance of consistency. For moral accountability, it should always in the end be "I say", not "the law says". No one should "just be obeying orders", they should make choices they can stand behind on their own judgment, regardless of whether some group of possibly long dead legislators stood behind it or not.
zahlman 9mo ago
The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal.
- trhway 9mo ago
  That is just simply not true as was illustrated by many stories in the news. And in particular why would the ICE then use that checklist - young, Latino, tatoos ... -> gang member to extradite (to Guatemala). And what final order of removal were for example the US citizens picked by ICE subject to?
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?
    - 15155 9mo ago
      Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."
      - defrost 9mo ago
        Sure, that happens a lot despite Court orders to the contrary. ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman * https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-recommends-case-wrongly-deported-north-carolina-citizen-go-forward/ https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-rec... Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.
        15155 9mo ago
        How many other developed countries in the world allow tourists to unconditionally birth citizens?
db48x 9mo ago
[flagged]
- computerthings 9mo ago
  [dead]
- trhway 9mo ago
  again, what the law says and what the ICE does is 2 very different things. Otherwise, explain how that law provides for random picking off the street dark skinned people, including citizens, that ICE has been doing.
- vharuck 9mo ago
  The point of the Executive branch is to decide how to execute the law using limited resources. The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. In the past, AGs used their discretion to target dangerous immigrants and low-hanging fruit. The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.
  - db48x 9mo ago
    > The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. Sadly true. Traditionally most removals happen at the border where illegal aliens are easier to detect and where they can simply deny entry. Biden neglected to do that quite deliberately. He made speeches about it. Trump did increase ICE’s budget though. Anyway, https://www.dhs.gov/wow https://www.dhs.gov/wow has twenty thousand examples of dangerous criminals who were insufficiently targeted by previous administrations if you’re interested. > The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors. This is the stated motive, sure, but the observed motive is different. Any time a “protester” sees what they think is an ICE operation their first actions are to try to save the people ICE is there to arrest. Yelling and blowing whistles to warn illegal aliens that ICE are present is just the start. Those Signal groups were training their members on how to surround officers and wrestle the arrestees away from them. They have no actual care at all for warrants; that’s merely an excuse for lawless behavior.

8note 9mo ago

which part of the immigration code lets ice agents kill citizens?

zahlman 9mo ago
[flagged]
- TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
  You can't invoke self-defence against someone filming with an iPhone. Don't be ridiculous. This whole line of argumentation is embarrassing.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Does murdering someone who is driving away from you prevent immediate harm to you? Uncontrolled moving vehicles with bricks on the accelerator are very dangerous. Self–defence is extremely limited in scope. Basically, if someone is about to stab you, you can do anything necessary to prevent that stabbing. Self–defence doesn't include that after someone fails to stab you and runs away, you can shoot them while they are running away. It doesn't include revenge. If you shoot someone who fails to stab you and runs away, it is murder like any other shooting. Self–defence doesn't include shooting someone who invades your house and isn't currently trying to hurt you, that is castle doctrine.
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        You assume the consequent with your language; a dead person is not necessarily a "brick on the accelerator"; and human reaction time is a thing. Officers are expected to make decisions in the moment that are reasonable given the totality of circumstances up to that point, without the benefit of hindsight. The decision to shoot was clearly made before the SUV could at all be said to be "getting away"; if you're a trained LEO (or even just someone with a firearm and specific self-defense training) you are going to fire multiple shots. Regardless of Good's intent (which is irrelevant to the self-defense case), at the moment the vehicle was put into drive, it was clearly pointed straight at the officer (after straightening out from the first point of the two-point turn) and only began turning later. And she was being counseled to "drive, baby, drive", which does not exactly suggest being careful. The fact that this posed a serious threat meeting the standard for self-defense is pretty easy to argue, especially given that he actually was struck by the vehicle. The left front wheel of the SUV can be seen (in the video from behind) to spin in place for a moment on an icy road; it's unclear exactly what the officer perceived in that moment, but it could very easily be argued that the officer reasonably believed he could prevent the car from moving forward by shooting, and by the time it was moving forward it was too late. Again, human reaction time is a thing.

direwolf20 9mo ago

Can you quote the part of 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II where it says you get to murder everyone you disagree with?