5 ms·

It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a wa

It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.

rayiner 5mo ago
I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?
- mindslight 5mo ago
  For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did! But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict. (Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pstuart 5mo ago
    ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do. But under Trump it's been different in several different ways: 1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness) 2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason 3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully* 4. Killing innocent US citizens. 5. Detaining US citizens. 6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country". Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
- pstuart 5mo ago
  Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so. If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that -- meaning that the immigrants who were/are here who have been completely legal in that should have been protected by the law, but weren't. Likewise, you'd care that officers of the law themselves followed the law, and the courts have found egregious cases of that not happening. And if it was about being fair in allowing immigrants in (specifically from south of the border, versus, say, whites from South Africa), the subject of fairness would have to examine the actions of the United States amongst it's southern neighbors and what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it". Now I'm not arguing for wide open gates either, but we had a system in place and the biggest problems with it were that it was poorly funded and staffed. After all, if you want them to be legal about it, there needs to be legal people to make that happen. > Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country And what about the demographics of such a poll? I recognize the need for some sort of law enforcement but if you had a family member having a mental health crisis would you call the cops? Do you think that the police are properly held accountable for their actions? Man, the Federalist Society sure is good at their job.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    > Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you. > what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it". You assume those countries are worth fleeing because of exogenous factors that cannot follow immigration flows rather than endogenous factors that can. > If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
    - pstuart 5mo ago
- 1659447091 5mo ago
  > The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45 Deporting illegal immigrants is not the issue with ICE. The issue with ICE is their killing of US Citizens, trying to cover it up until video evidence show they are absolutely lying trigger happy murders only to have the admin shrug and/or defend the agents actions and blaming the victims; also detaining and deporting US Citizens[0] doesn't sit well with other US Citizens. [0] https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-citizen-deported-ice-detention-brian-morales/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-...
pstuart 5mo ago
After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the people who were killed are of a different tribe so their being killed is right and just? Those are the avenues I can think of. If I am missing one please volunteer it!
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government? Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.
Rekindle8090 5mo ago
[dead]

rayiner 5mo ago

I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?

mindslight 5mo ago
For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did! But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict. (Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- pstuart 5mo ago
  ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do. But under Trump it's been different in several different ways: 1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness) 2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason 3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully* 4. Killing innocent US citizens. 5. Detaining US citizens. 6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country". Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
pstuart 5mo ago
Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so. If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that -- meaning that the immigrants who were/are here who have been completely legal in that should have been protected by the law, but weren't. Likewise, you'd care that officers of the law themselves followed the law, and the courts have found egregious cases of that not happening. And if it was about being fair in allowing immigrants in (specifically from south of the border, versus, say, whites from South Africa), the subject of fairness would have to examine the actions of the United States amongst it's southern neighbors and what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it". Now I'm not arguing for wide open gates either, but we had a system in place and the biggest problems with it were that it was poorly funded and staffed. After all, if you want them to be legal about it, there needs to be legal people to make that happen. > Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country And what about the demographics of such a poll? I recognize the need for some sort of law enforcement but if you had a family member having a mental health crisis would you call the cops? Do you think that the police are properly held accountable for their actions? Man, the Federalist Society sure is good at their job.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  > Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you. > what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it". You assume those countries are worth fleeing because of exogenous factors that cannot follow immigration flows rather than endogenous factors that can. > If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
  - pstuart 5mo ago
1659447091 5mo ago
> The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45 Deporting illegal immigrants is not the issue with ICE. The issue with ICE is their killing of US Citizens, trying to cover it up until video evidence show they are absolutely lying trigger happy murders only to have the admin shrug and/or defend the agents actions and blaming the victims; also detaining and deporting US Citizens[0] doesn't sit well with other US Citizens. [0] https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-citizen-deported-ice-detention-brian-morales/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-...

pstuart 5mo ago

After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.

rayiner 5mo ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 5mo ago
  It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the people who were killed are of a different tribe so their being killed is right and just? Those are the avenues I can think of. If I am missing one please volunteer it!
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government? Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.

Rekindle8090 5mo ago

[dead]