I live in Chicago, and this article doesn't even scratch the surface of how bad it is. My wife went to the beach yesterday for 10 minutes to try and rest from the chaos and a fucking black hawk helicopter buzzed by her. They literally fly over my house daily.
People, US citizens included, are literally being abducted. People have been shot and killed by masked agents. People have had their children abandoned on the side of the road after being kidnapped. Just today they raided Little Village with hundreds of masked troops. I'm in a dozen signal groups to get alerted about where things are.
What scares me the most is how few people seem to actually know what is happening here. I talk to people outside of Chicago, and watch the news, and I don't see or hear about anything that's going on here. I tell them what's happening and they are shocked.
It is impossible to convey what is happening here, how scared we all are for this country, and how much things seem to escalate every single day that this goes on.
Edit: This post has been flagged and hidden, just demonstrating how much this country wants to pretend this isn't happening. It's unflagged now, but the fact that anyone would want to hide what's happening here shows how bad things are for all of us.
The media also has an existential threat of being taken as seriously as Russian and Chinese media are taken by the Russian and Chinese people, respectively.
OP mentions US citizens being detained. Commenter is wondering how other US citizens supporting such activities would feel if their family was detained similarly.
Unless you’re talking about citizens of another country that are in favor of these deportations, your comment is plainly illogical.
>The number of times this has happened has not been 0, but in terms of documented instances, you're not talking about a very large group of people.
"you're not talking about a very large group of people"? Does that make it acceptable? If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared?
> If so, what's the upper limit on an acceptable number of citizens being disappeared?
I didn’t articulate that properly. There have probably been a non-zero number of illegal detentions, and a few instances (only about a dozen that I’m aware of, most of those preceding the present administration) where citizens have been deported. The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0, but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that in your view it’s worth deporting a few citizens to a prison in another country so that we can deport folks at Home Depot parking lots etc.
>but there’s no evidence that it’s a systemic problem that would necessitate abolishing immigration enforcement entirely.
Who said anything about that? As I pointed out in another comment, the Biden administration deported more folks in four years than Obama and Trump did in twelve. And he did so without masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, dragging them out of their cars and abducting them off the street, while lying that it was the abducted citizen who caused the ruckus. And Biden did so without those same masked thugs slamming into the cars of citizens, then shooting them multiple times, lying about the circumstances and destroying evidence about it.
No one, other than you, said anything about "abolishing immigration enforcement entirely."
But we certainly don't need masked thugs with a budget larger than the Military budgets of all but three nations to do so. As the last 250 years have shown.
All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you? Okay. Let's start with you and your family. What's that? That's not what you meant? You mean you think it's okay as long as it's not you?
> All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you?
If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote:
> The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0
You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil,
rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen.
We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think:
>You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration.
Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts by ICE that you are willing to tolerate.
And would that number change if you and/or your family are among those?[1]
As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. Because we're supposed to live in a society of laws, not unaccountable, masked thugs who can act with impunity -- regardless of the goal.
The ends do not justify the means.
Want to be "tough" on those who have committed a civil infraction (overstaying their visas -- the vast majority of those who aren't here on valid documents) and on those who evaded border security (a misdemeanor). Fine. Then do so without harassing, beating and murdering folks, including those who don't have valid residence documents/visas -- as the penalty for such things is a fine and a short jail stay, then removal to their home country -- and certainly not creating a "papers please"[0] police state in our free and open society.
That's not the society I've lived in for more than half a century. Nor is it one I wish to live in.
Why do you want to live in such a society? No. Really. I'd like to understand why you want to live in a police state. Do tell.
>Given that a system is necessary,
Which system is "necessary"? We never (for 250 years) had to have masked thugs maiming, murdering and disappearing my fellow Americans before. Why is that? Because it's illegal and an explicit violation of Constitutional rights.
Why is it "necessary" now?
[0] So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?
[1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.
> Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? […] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law.
This is demonstrably false; if you aren’t violently resisting it, you’re tolerating it the same way that I am tolerating it. Consider this; Israel’s security is effectively guaranteed by the United States. Israel has killed innocent civilians. The United States is at least partially complicit in these crimes insofar as it continues to finance Israeli national security. This is ongoing. It’s happening now. You can say you won’t tolerate it, but you are tolerating it; you’re here with me now having this conversation, and not engaged in a campaign of guerrilla warfare against those facilitating these crimes.
When I say “the ideal number is 0,” it means just that; there’s not a situation in which it would become legally acceptable for a citizen to be deported, but it could feasibly happen, and if it did, this would not invalidate immigration enforcement as a practice.
> So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?
None of that appears anywhere in my post.
> [1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.
You’re trying to use this as a rhetorical flourish (“How would you feel if the thing I’m pretending like you’re endorsing happened to you, huh?”) but the way you’ve written it betrays that it isn’t meant as a parable for me to learn from, but a fantasy for you to indulge in. You’re doing this because your arguments are weak and you have to rely on a resentful dream that I’ll be proven wrong in an /r/LeopardsAteMyFace style comeuppance.
Actually, you ignored (at least IMHO) the most important issue I addressed: that of the curtailment of our hard-won individual rights of free expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, due process and privacy, among others. You know, those rights that are explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, paid for with the blood and treasure of our ancestors and protected with the blood and treasure of more recent ancestors.
You didn't address that at all.
That's what's got me up in arms here.
You appear to have imagined that I must think that "everyone on the planet, especially the darkies from Central and South America must be allowed to live in lurk2's house, eat his food and fuck his wife." Far from it.
My problem with all of this is that when you take away the rights enshrined in our Constitution for some, you set the precedent to do so for everyone. And I'm not okay with that.
I guess I also asked you the wrong question. You appear to be okay with the diminution and curtailment of the rights explicitly protected in our highest law.
I guess I'd like to know why you're so willing to do so.
And yes, I strongly suspect that you're not posting in good faith, since you ignored (and then claimed otherwise) the most important parts of the discussion we ('we' meaning the HN community) were having about this.
Sadly, I expect you're channeling the anti-semites that Sartre mused upon[0] many years ago. And more's the pity.
My aunt is a republican lobbyist. She is also a drunk. This means that she gets drunk and texts the family things all of the time.
She wants everybody in US cities to suffer. Illegal immigrant, legal immigrant, or citizen. She thinks that people who live in places like Chicago are snooty woke idiots and that it'd be better if cops hit every single person there with a nightstick and took them away from their kids.
There are plenty of legal US citizens being abducted.
From TFA: US citizens, including women and children, were grabbed from their beds, marched outside without even a chance to dress, zip-tied, and loaded into vans.
If we assume the reporting in the linked video was accurate, you’re at most talking about unlawful detention and 4th amendment violations. No one with legal status to reside in the country was reported to have disappeared in the way you are implying.
I’m not at all worried about my family being deported for the simple reason that they have legal status to reside in the places where they reside. I wouldn’t have approached it the same way, but for the sole reason that you end up with citizens being inconvenienced.
This post wasn’t about citizens having their rights infringed upon, though; it’s obvious from the editorializing that the author does not believe that America has any fundamental right to sovereignty. The author’s primary concern (and yours, I would venture) is ensuring that foreign nationals are not molested as they continue to reside and work within the United States illegally.
So you believe that America has a fundamental right to enforce its immigration laws, and that enforcement of those laws is permissible provided that such enforcement occurs within whatever bounds you deem to be humane, and your only objection to these activities is their real or potential impact on the civil rights of American citizens?
Pretty obviously. In fact, you defined a pretty good standard with the exception of the snark about what the OP deems humane - not deporting to an overcrowded prison in a 3rd country can’t be that hard to agree on.
All evidenced by the fact that higher deportation numbers during Obama created no uproar. You think it’s coz Obama was handsome or smtg?
You're telling me it's obvious but I still don't think that you'd agree with the statement that: "your only objection to these activities is their real or potential impact on the civil rights of American citizens." If the infrastructure was in place to ensure each of these cases was thoroughly reviewed (for example, to address refugee claimant status), would you object to the deportation of absolutely all foreign nationals illegally residing in the United States? I have a hunch that the answer is no, and even if it were yes, I don't think it's obvious from the language used in this thread that attitudes towards this issue are stemming from a Ron Paul style concern over the fate of the American Republic and its civil liberties. From the language used, it seems far more likely that these people see immigration law as basically illegitimate, and that their policy position is whatever enables the largest number of illegal residents to remain in the country.
> In fact, you defined a pretty good standard with the exception of the snark about what the OP deems humane
You're reading into the comment. His own standard of what he deems humane would obviously be a prerequisite for him to deem the practices acceptable. Given the inane comment you made about another one of my comments being "plainly illogical" I would request that you keep to the issues and stop tone policing.
> - not deporting to an overcrowded prison in a 3rd country can’t be that hard to agree on.
Evidently not. It's not the most effective policy (which would be targeting employers), but if you don't imprison repeat offenders, the incentive will always be there to try again. For as many of the sob stories you're seeing about a father of six getting deported after working diligently for 30 years as an unlicensed carpenter, there are a dozen guys getting caught at the Home Deport parking lot who will be back in the country within the year. Deportation to these people is an inconvenience, not a Greek tragedy, and the only way you could really dissuade them from it would be incarcerating them so that the penalty is some period where they know they aren't going to have any earnings.
> All evidenced by the fact that higher deportation numbers during Obama created no uproar. You think it’s coz Obama was handsome or smtg?
Obama's higher deportation numbers were largely the result of changes to the definition of what constituted a deportation.
- No problem with deportation as long as civil liberties aren’t trampled on.
- 3rd country prison “because they will be back soon” is _plainly illogical._ What’s the point of deporting if you won’t maintain a border? Are we deporting people for fun and profits?
Deportation had been “sending you back home” until now. Sending people to a prison in whatever country you want is so plainly illegal and immoral. Not expecting morality anymore but would you agree with Americans being deported to Iran if they were in Palestine illegally? I am certain you would not.
Understandable, but note that decisions like that are part of the adminstration's objectives. This isn't a Chicago policy; it's a federal targeting of Chicago for political reasons.
> People, US citizens included, are literally being abducted.
Show me a case where an ICE officer has been convicted of abduction.
Or are you just saying that because you think you get to have a veto over every arrest?
Just under Biden, 7.2 million illegal aliens have crossed the border (Trump says 10 million). [1] Why are you surprised there are so many arrests? There are so many people to send back. In fact, Trump is arresting so few people, that it will be impossible to bring the number down Obama levels.
People, US citizens included, are literally being abducted. People have been shot and killed by masked agents. People have had their children abandoned on the side of the road after being kidnapped. Just today they raided Little Village with hundreds of masked troops. I'm in a dozen signal groups to get alerted about where things are.
What scares me the most is how few people seem to actually know what is happening here. I talk to people outside of Chicago, and watch the news, and I don't see or hear about anything that's going on here. I tell them what's happening and they are shocked.
It is impossible to convey what is happening here, how scared we all are for this country, and how much things seem to escalate every single day that this goes on.
Edit: This post has been flagged and hidden, just demonstrating how much this country wants to pretend this isn't happening. It's unflagged now, but the fact that anyone would want to hide what's happening here shows how bad things are for all of us.