3 ms·

Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory? This is an inversion of the

Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory? This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers? This is not a valid comparison. Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity? What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations? Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective? Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions. re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens? Most of them probably are citizens. Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle? The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens. Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country? People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?

zahlman 6mo ago
> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle. If and when that happens, we can talk about this. > What does this mean? It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen. > Most of them probably are citizens. I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy. > the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens. I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here. > the current immigration enforcement regime This use of language is poisoning the well. > they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should? When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.
- maxerickson 6mo ago
  Meh.

zahlman 6mo ago

> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle. If and when that happens, we can talk about this. > What does this mean? It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen. > Most of them probably are citizens. I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy. > the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens. I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here. > the current immigration enforcement regime This use of language is poisoning the well. > they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should? When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.

maxerickson 6mo ago
Meh.