5 ms·

Identify you when though? Important question I guess

by datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

lazide 9mo ago
The US has been using ICE a lot. Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictional-boundaries/ https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...]. Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest. Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Not ICE? > Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
  - lazide 9mo ago
    First question - CBP, as noted. Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were. ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
      - 5ykh 9mo ago
        It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
        JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 9mo ago
        Not who you are responding too, but I tried to look up the legal justifications behind ICE and it’s a mess. Good luck untangling it!
        5ykh 9mo ago
        The answer to your question is irrelevant. ICE does whatever the dictator tells it to. Legal basis vs. policy basis no longer matters. The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor given the reality of what’s going on.
        JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously. To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
        5ykh 9mo ago
        Ah. My bad spelling. That is a great, pertinent thing to point out. I did abuse the meaning of non sequitor. I was trying to convey a sense that is lost on you without writing a treatise. The law doesn’t matter because we are living in a personaist dictatorship. Asking for the policy or legal basis of ICE’s actions is pointless and ignores the reality that ICE doesn’t care about this and no authority in the country is willing and/or able to stop their abuses.
    - laughing_man 9mo ago
      That last part isn't true. Citizens who impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties can be arrested by ICE. That is specifically written into the law, and it's a statute that can be interpreted pretty broadly.
      - lazide 9mo ago
        Why do you think that specific sub case that applies to all law enforcement folks, applies to my statement?
        laughing_man 9mo ago
        Because ICE is law enforcement? I'm not sure what your point is. Did you know ICE can arrest you for harboring illegal aliens?
        lazide 9mo ago
        If highway patrol was spending their day harassing loiterers at the mall, everyone would be pissed. Because 1) while they are legally allowed to do it, it isn’t their job, and 2) it is other people’s jobs. Which is the point.
- defrost 9mo ago
  > Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border To quote a prominent US historian: In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open. One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply. Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border. * https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness

Identify you when though? Important question I guess

The US has been using ICE a lot. Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictional-boundaries/ https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...]. Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest. Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Not ICE? > Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
- lazide 9mo ago
  First question - CBP, as noted. Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were. ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
    - 5ykh 9mo ago
      It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 9mo ago
        Not who you are responding too, but I tried to look up the legal justifications behind ICE and it’s a mess. Good luck untangling it!
        5ykh 9mo ago
        The answer to your question is irrelevant. ICE does whatever the dictator tells it to. Legal basis vs. policy basis no longer matters. The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor given the reality of what’s going on.
        JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously. To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
        5ykh 9mo ago
        Ah. My bad spelling. That is a great, pertinent thing to point out. I did abuse the meaning of non sequitor. I was trying to convey a sense that is lost on you without writing a treatise. The law doesn’t matter because we are living in a personaist dictatorship. Asking for the policy or legal basis of ICE’s actions is pointless and ignores the reality that ICE doesn’t care about this and no authority in the country is willing and/or able to stop their abuses.
  - laughing_man 9mo ago
    That last part isn't true. Citizens who impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties can be arrested by ICE. That is specifically written into the law, and it's a statute that can be interpreted pretty broadly.
    - lazide 9mo ago
      Why do you think that specific sub case that applies to all law enforcement folks, applies to my statement?
      - laughing_man 9mo ago
        Because ICE is law enforcement? I'm not sure what your point is. Did you know ICE can arrest you for harboring illegal aliens?
        lazide 9mo ago
        If highway patrol was spending their day harassing loiterers at the mall, everyone would be pissed. Because 1) while they are legally allowed to do it, it isn’t their job, and 2) it is other people’s jobs. Which is the point.
defrost 9mo ago
> Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border To quote a prominent US historian: In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open. One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply. Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border. * https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness