willmarch

7 ms·

121.
by willmarch 9mo ago
“Pedantry” isn’t the issue; your claim is doing causal work (“flow eliminated” -> “dent” -> “headway”), so it needs to be stated in a way the data actually supports. “Many hundreds of thousands per month” isn’t what the Border Patrol
122.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Good point. That does seem contradictory.
123.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Fair position. What are the relevant elephants in the room in your opinion, just out of genuine curiosity?
124.
by willmarch 9mo ago
I’ve been able to have some quality discussions around these issues but I get your perspective. I hope at some point soon, we as a country, can go back to viewing politics as a rational and civil discussion of differences in policy approach
125.
by willmarch 9mo ago
So basically you’re trying to suppress opinions you don’t like or agree with, relevant or not?
126.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
127.
by willmarch 9mo ago
It’s absolutely an effort to suppress criticism and/or try to deny the now undeniable by some HN users
128.
by willmarch 9mo ago
I think it is relevant to HN users that the US is falling into authoritarianism with seemingly no guardrails to prevent it.
129.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Fully agreed. This is a violation of the spirit of the law and will make everyone view law enforcement agents as untrustworthy protectors of our Constitution.
130.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Correct.
131.
by willmarch 9mo ago
‘“We were there for a check-in and the original officer said, ‘This looks good, I’ll be right back,’” Prokosch said. “And then there was a lot of chaos, and about five officers came out and then they said, ‘We’re going to be taking him back
132.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Related: ICE takes back into custody man released for violation of rights https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46648978
133.
ICE takes back into custody man released for violation of rights(apnews.com)
106 points by willmarch 9mo ago|61 comments
134.
by willmarch 9mo ago
You can’t take anything this administration says at face value. They have a pattern of blatant lies. Below the section you chose to quote: ‘Court records indicate Gibson’s legal history shows only the one felony in 2008 (later dismissed by
135.
by willmarch 9mo ago
He’s going to do it either way, that’s the whole point of the attack on Minnesota
136.
by willmarch 9mo ago
‘U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan said in his ruling that the agents violated Garrison Gibson’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. “To arrest him, Respondents forcibly entered Garrison G.’s home without his consen
137.
Judge orders release of man arrested in Minneapolis by ICE with a battering RAM(apnews.com)
25 points by willmarch 9mo ago|14 comments
138.
by willmarch 9mo ago
They claim the "AWS European Sovereign Cloud represents a physically and logically separate cloud infrastructure, with all components located entirely within the EU" and that it operates entirely under German laws, but I think you
139.
by willmarch 9mo ago
It is an attempt to not lose European customers that might be tempted to migrate to Europe-based solutions in the current political climate. In the event of a serious trade war (like you suggested) and/or a real war, it gives some assu
140.
59% of Republicans favor use of force immigration raids despite risk of deaths(reuters.com)
18 points by willmarch 9mo ago|18 comments
141.
by willmarch 9mo ago
This is just blatantly not true.
142.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Examples?
143.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Your sources don’t say what you’re claiming. The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “<9,000/month”), not that the “flow” is “largely eliminated.” Encounters aren’t the same thing as total
144.
by willmarch 9mo ago
“Simply incorrect” overstates what your CIS link shows. Yes, status isn’t always known at arrest, and time-lag/unknown-status classification is a real measurement issue. But that’s not a demonstration that the cited studies are false;
145.
by willmarch 9mo ago
You’re mixing up three different things: Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New Y
146.
by willmarch 9mo ago
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful. But you’re smuggling a lot
147.
by willmarch 9mo ago
I hear you on the “maybe they threw rocks/blocked vehicles/got warned” list (but that’s basically DHS’s standard script in every crowd-control incident.) Two things: The video of the pastor getting hit doesn’t match that story in
148.
by willmarch 9mo ago
You’re still dodging the point by arguing founders’ personal depravity instead of the political theory they articulated: rights don’t come from government, authority is delegated, and it has limits. The fact that many founders violated thei
149.
by willmarch 9mo ago
You’re conflating three different things: (1) founders’ personal moral failures, (2) the legitimacy theory they articulated, and (3) what an emergency posture from SCOTUS actually proves. On (1) vs (2): yes, the founding generation tolerate
150.
by willmarch 9mo ago
Because your premise is untrue.

More ›