Posted by throwaway81523 1 day ago
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/26/ice-detains-...
(ICE's lack of transparency is a valid, but separate, concern, and The Guardian could have at least attempted to contact them before publishing speculation.)
I refuse to accept these accusations by word-of-mouth. The White House is currently accusing former presidents of "pro-Hamas rhetoric" (which they never expressed).
It would seem to me that "pro-Hamas" is a meaningless cudgel used by the ruling party to justify mistreatment of those who oppose Israel.
https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-...
His language is simply anti-Israel.
Because if we apply that logic across the board, then the United States and Israel are both objectively complicit in internationally illegal war crimes. Any citizens that promote their legitimacy is trying to undermine global order, obstruct legitimate democracy and prevent criminal justice for organized terrorism.
Both sides have their faults, but I'm not willing to indict Hamdi for the same reason I don't accuse US citizens of being responsible for Abu Ghraib. It's not justice, just pugilism.
That's fine. But we can both agree that bigotry is not evidence of a crime. If we expanded this "I won't believe for a second" logic further, any number of Americans could be arrested for any reason. It's a slippery slope that you are making more slippery by making immaterial correlations. What you assume is not the same as actual rhetoric.
Violence for political aims.
So yes, that necessarily includes when some alphabet soup agency makes a big show of having some mid-tier guy's door kicked in at 6am by a bunch of fed-cops for violating some law that HN loves.
You cannot quote a single part of the article you listed where he argues in-favor of Hamas, because he does not mention them at all. You are casting aspersions that do not exist, much in the way the White House has to resort to defaming former presidents instead of setting a morally-consistent example.
You're making a bad-faith extrapolation that most people know is desperate. If it was applied universally, you'd be crying foul too.
We can set aside the Hamas connection if you like, but in any case he was glorifying an attack that included deliberate massacres of civilians.
That's always the way it works with secret police. The idea of due process of law and norm following is (1) expressly designed to provide assurances in cases like this and (2) being deliberately degraded and evaded by ICE and DHS at all levels.
Trying to make the story actually about bland journalism criticism is doing their jobs for them. To borrow your framing: your critique is technically accurate, but...
Or if it did, then why this particular assumption? Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair style or something?
Right, which is why I called you out for bringing it up. Make your bland criticism of the Guardian in a journalism forum.
If the standard for criticizing clear ICE overreach (and yes, an unexplained detainment is very clear overreach for a department who are statutorily just supposed to be checking visas) becomes "You have to be able to prove that ICE was wrong before saying anything", then that simply makes them the secret police.
It just doesn't seem to be a good faith discussion of the situation, and in particular it makes your position seem decidedly pro-secret-police.
[1] Which amounts, basically, to "Mildly sensationalist mid-tier news outfit used a sensational headline". It's boring.
... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt?
Exactly. Even if this guy holds beliefs that aren't aligned with those of the US government, so what? That is not a reason to detain or refuse entry to a place that's supposed to embrace freedom of expression and of the press.
This is blatantly anti-democratic (small 'd'), capricious and just one more example of the current administration's attempts to destroy a free and open society.
Yet here you guys (@ajroos, @dlubarov, etc.) arguing about why the US government is abandoning the rule of law and trying to normalize authoritarianism and bad-faith governance. It doesn't matter why. It's wrong and evil on its face.
Because he was arrested in the US?
I've been looking, but all I find is that:
> Mr Hamdi has previously denied accusations that he celebrated October 7, instead claiming he was "illustrating the international recognition that efforts to normalise relations in the Middle East must include Palestinian people."
> He told the National Post: "The October 7 events underscore the failure of any approach that seeks normalisation at the expense of the Palestinian people."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk-citizen-who-encourag...
It's referenced in "Times of Israel" [1] that, "According to MEMRI, in December 2023, Hamdi called to “celebrate the victory” of October 7 and asked his audience “how many of you felt euphoria” when they heard of the Hamas onslaught in which terrorists killed some 1,200 people and took 251 hostages."
However, their hyperlink in the word "called" points to a MEMRI report that requires a request to view [2]. Do you happen to have any easily-accessible, non-walled content or reporting of Hamdi saying those things?
[1] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-detains-british-commentator...
[2] - https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-...
It's as if all pro-Israel bots and fan accounts are reading the exact same guide.
I should write an AI to find them all.
Historically, many pro-Israel talking point guides/handbooks have been created and used, yes [1][2][3][4]. It would thus be unreasonable to assume that they are not currently being coordinated.
[1] http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
[2] https://rac.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/Israel_Talking_P...
[3] https://www.scribd.com/document/77298173/Israel-s-Hasbara-To...
[4] https://i-gnite.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/hadassah-talk...
Has anyone thought about their position for 5 seconds? There is NO islamic country with a right to free speech. Zero. Not even countries like Morocco or Turkey have anything remotely like free speech, and they're the most open Islamic countries imaginable. There are dozens of islamic countries with death penalties for criticism of islam or government (and even Morocco and Turkey have prison sentences for that). CAIR is representing these countries' interests in the US, and they are arguing for free speech protection ... in the US. Not in the over 200 countries where muslims use state violence to control speech. In the US. They are making zero efforts to protect free speech anywhere else.
Obviously no sane person can reasonably consider these people to be either engaging in free speech or protecting free speech, can they?
Yet they really care about free speech ... in America. THAT is where the free speech problem is according to them. Am I really the only one having trouble believing that this is a genuine attitude? Oh and they only defend their version of free speech, with limits on "hate speech" (but not Sami Hamdi's kind of hate speech of course), limits on criticism of religion, and limits on criticizing middle eastern governments. You know, THAT kind of free speech. CAIR, in the US, is really arguing for limits on free speech, "against hate speech", against "islamophobia", against criticism of middle eastern governments, you know limits on the very thing free speech was created for (ie. to protect all criticism of religion and governments, especially foreign ones, but all governments, including the US one)
And who do they invite? Sami Hamdi.
Please go read his twitter stream and tell me if you believe people who hire this guy have any problem with hate speech. Oh and maybe it's just one issue, so filter out the Gaza conflict, and ... nope still hate speech, mostly about the UK. Okay, filter out the UK too. He's defending people who went "on a Jew hunt" in the Netherlands ... This guy is not a moderate in any way shape or form.
Here's the link: https://x.com/SALHACHIMI
I'm sure he'll have made 5 new posts by the time this is read and they'll be another 5 posts inciting at the very least more hatred of Israeli. You may hate Trump, but let's be blunt here: this guy is thankfully powerless, but is easily a LOT worse than Trump.
If you take CAIR's attitude at face value, limits on free speech against hate speech, they'd help deport Sami Hamdi. But clearly this kind of hate speech they don't just want to allow, but protect and nurture.
What I mean is, CAIR really make themselves look really bad here. Really, really, really bad.
I, too, love taking someones papers and removing them from the country over their speech. I cheer on the army of government agents scanning social media for wrongthink so that we can rid the country of anti-Israel sentiment.
Saying you hate $NATION and that you want it destroyed is definitely saying you don't want to be there and it's probably a good idea not to have you there.
What is being argued is that the government doing this goes against our values as Americans. It's interesting to observe the same side (right-wingers, libertarians) hold water for these actions while they were painting social media bans as censorship and a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Maybe you didn't do that, but your comment certainly reads like a "well, technically their visa can be revoked" argument which is true, but misses the spirit of the First Amendment.
EDIT: there might be legal issues too depending on the reason for revocation but I'm not a legal expert. Most things in our constitution apply to people and not just citizens so someone visiting the US also has free speech rights.
It also depends on the severity of what someone is doing... there's a difference between speech and action. Saying you disagree with the administration, vs taking hostages and seizing part of a school are different things. Saying you would like to see amnesty for those who entered illegally is different than defrauding the govt, flaunting it on social media and trying to ram a car into a federal agent.
> If someone came into my home, told me they hate me, my way of life, want me dead and starts setting fires in my living room
This analogy doesn't hold up because it's your house, of course you have the right to keep whatever company you like. Same for social media companies. You're not the government.
It's called an analogy. As a citizen, this nation IS my home.
That's why this shift is so frustrating and disappointing to so many Americans. It would be like if the Vatican became protestant, or the UK suddenly stopped drinking tea.
If another resident is constantly talking shit about all the rest and saying he thinks they should be shot and go fuck themselves and their moms should die etc etc etc but they immediately call the police on me for telling them to fuck off, saying they felt "threatened" and "unsafe" just because I was the most recent one to move in, I'd also probably say "What the fuck?" about the double standard.
It's like having a bunch of frat bros getting rowdy at a party while the host's wife is having a mental breakdown and waving a gun around. Like the frat bro's aren't great and probably wouldn't be getting that rowdy but are they really what's ruining the vibe?
This isn't to say you can't or shouldn't speak out against anything only that when you participate in political activism, especially when accompanying those decrying a hatred or wishing destruction of the nation you are in, there can and often will be negative repercussions.
On the global scale, the U.S. is one of the less restrictive nations on this issue. Many countries will absolutely block you at the border, imprison you for years then deport you.
As to CAIR, there are a lot of groups in the US that I think are antithetical to a free society as a whole. If it were up to me, the communist groups, antifa, neo-nazi orgs, CAIR and several other groups wouldn't exist in the US in the first place. As it stands, we have freedom of speech and that protects speech you don't like... speech you agree with doesn't need protecting. I'm not a free speech absolutist, but far more in favor of the open discussion than not, the light of day is the best disinfectant. This does not include violent acts, terrorism, or the advocation thereof.
So, ah, not freedom of speech, then?
> https://www.google.com/search?q=california+declares+war+on+t...
> California has not declared war on Texas, but the states are engaged in a "redistricting war," a political struggle over drawing new congressional maps. This "war" is a symbolic conflict between the states' differing political parties and aims to gain an advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives, with California attempting to counterbalance Texas's Republican-drawn map.
If numerous publications are referring to your country having a war, then it might as well be ok for a lay-person to use the word.
Political: Total war.
Legal: Almost total war. The president has yet to openly disobey a Supreme Court ruling; other than that, it's pretty much total war.
Information: Total war.
It is shocking how different this is from 20 years ago.
We are not fixing the root cause here even if you believe that immigration is bad for the country. It’s just a farce.
The recent ICE shenanigans (which don’t get me wrong - are awful and badly executed) are just performative bullshit to please the voter base. In fact I’d argue they are intentionally executed badly to attract media attention so they can all say they are being tough on immigrants.
The answer is the business owners are their constituents. They cannot afford to piss them off. If they lose their support the wheels will fall off this farcical performance.
I grew up in Florida, and I remember the sugar plantation “raids” they used to stage. They were a complete dog and pony show. They would announce them in advance so the plantations could hide most of their undocumented workers. Then they would round up just enough people for the photo op to prove they were being “tough on immigration.”
This is the same thing but on a grander and more dangerous scale.
Here's one that happened near me last month: https://cnycentral.com/news/local/breakdown-ice-detains-work... - and there are more happening in other places.
Because immigration stuff isn't the primary purpose at this time. The primary purpose is to normalize a police state, to invoke feelings of fear in the general population and to build up a bigger infrastructure to do more authoritarian things.
For the most part, they've been targeting visa overstays by those who have been charged with and/or convicted of other crimes in the US. Not significantly different than under Obama. It's only that the visibility has been turned up to 11 along with ramped up protests and state/city sanctioned resistance in some locations.
As to the ramp-up in scale.. that's what happens when you let 5x the amount of people legally allowed entry to come into a nation in a relatively short period of time illegally. over 90% of asylum claims are invalid and fraudulent... there is almost no legitimate reason for crossing into the country outside a recognized port of entry.
I say this as someone who feels that immigration should generally be tied to "do you have a source of income and a place to stay?" at its' core... combined with a multiple of minimum wage as an income baseline with hefty employer side taxes to go along with. Arguments against doing so are very similar in my mind to having slavery... it's not okay, not good for the nation. I have similar feelings that "free trade" should only occur when similar quality of life or safety measures are in place. I'm optimistically libertarian minded, but recognize reality.
"That is outside the scope of this investigation." Nothing ever happened.
At Hormel, complaining about all sorts of strange diseases and health conditions, possibly from inhaling aerosolized pig brain all day long? Oh, look, another raid.
"Won't someone rid me of these meddlesome workers?"
Just a theory but it seems highly plausible in both these cases that the companies and ICE colluded... stage a big photo op, get rid of problematic undocumented workers and oh, hey, wouldn't you know, no plans to investigate the company?
This is also your friendly reminder that visa overstays are a misdemeanor, but for an employer, assisting or knowingly hiring undocumented workers is a felony. Tough on crime, indeed.
Is it (R) or (M) for MAGA.
I used to joke "Hello to the NSA analyst reading this!" when talking about "sensitive stuff" in private messages, but I guess that needs to be updated to "Hello to the LLM!"
"The purpose of a system is what it does", not what it claims to do. Today it looks like that purpose includes mass surveillance of social media.
Just because the grunts are dead serious doesn't mean the initiative is dead serious.
Even then, serious doesn't equal competent. They are still trying to deport Abrego Garcia. Spending millions in legal fees and transport to deport a single man is not pratical in the slightest.
Turns out cruelty is very expensive to maintain, though. And we certainly do not have the economy to keep accommodating the narrative as real citizens starve and lose jobs. Something's going to break.
But you're in denial if you really think certain driven individuals in all three branches of the us government aren't dead ass serious about taking this stuff to misanthropic ends.
But their message isn't directly saying "spend 1 trillion dollars to be bigoted"
People have been worrying about "ecofascism" well then why aren't you concerned about an administration whose policy is measles outbreaks for the misinformed of their constituency? Whose health minister is a rich environmental lawyer who just so happens to be a huge fan of letting disease rip?
It has a chilling effect on what people say and do.
You'll notice the same effect in other states that have armed people who turn up unexpectedly to make people disappear.
You can't solve the problem at the "just regulate the employers" level because it invariably turns into a tighter regulatory capture further enriching the incumbents. Any reform will necessarily increase the competitive advantage of the current winners because they are the ones in a position to shape it.
I'll just go with the dictionary:
>to allow to be used inefficiently or become dissipated
So, why are we bailing out Argentina, or bombing the South American gulfs? We can't be efficient if we can't even explain our reasoning. I've heard very little reasoning from the administration.
The best I heard was "we're hitting drug dealers". Even if I believed that, pending hundreds of billions to attack boats with drugs on them sounds horribly inefficient. Drugs are not an immediate threat to people and we have many methods through negotiation to simply limit/stop such imports.
I've heard zero justifications anywhere on the Argentina issue. It seems even many republicans do not like this approach.
You're confusing transparency with efficiency. Military and international politics decisions often need public lies or omissions for political reasons but that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose. If you word it more honestly as "The government can't be efficient if it doesn't explain its reasoning to the public", then it obviously doesn't follow from the definition of waste.
They go hand in hand. Or is it fine that the government is openly lying about how it claims to want to be "America First"?
>that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose.
And that's what I ask. What is the intended purpose? I fail to explain it, and even with my most cynical interpretations I don't see how this is an efficient route.
Transparency would help a lot in evaluating if they aren't being wasteful. But as is, it seems to be a bunch of special interests all clashing with one another in the White House. They don't make sense because there's no unified plan.
Which meets the above definition of "waste"
They want people to stop coming here, and the threat of being sent to some torture camp in the third world won’t deter a Haitian (whose daily life already meets that description) but it will deter people from less atrocious locations.
I don't know much about him but aren't his grand parents Belarusians who came over to the US?
pulling up the ladder behind you isn't a new concept
To the extent that it is comparable we would be absolutely justified in regulating immigration because the implication would be that the same thing that we did to the native americans is going to happen to us.
Its also not in any way reasonable to use the sins of the distant ancestor to delegitimize the nation's right to self-determination. Even if i accept your premise that my ancestors are comparable to immigrants i myself am not. If the argument is that the nation has no rights to control its own borders because that would constitute some sort of "generational hypocrisy" that would also mean we have an obligation to accommodate slavery and genocide because our ancestors committed and benefitted from both of those.
> The USA can tolerate one of these two things. A system of no welfare, no social services, no socialized medicine, food or housing with open borders. OR. No open boarders and highly limited, highly controlled, assimilating immigration policy. We cannot have both. When the USA had unlimited immigration over 100 years ago, we did not have Government supporting immigrants with welfare, medical services, housing, food etc.
I don't agree with Mr. Gallo here - I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.
The policy in my red state is to spend public funds to treat unliked immigrants as harshly as possible, deny social welfare to citizens in need and prioritize gov resources for admin loyalists. At least it is now that courts are sufficiently captured.
Public policy discussions always get boiled down to some simple wording that isn't strictly accurate.
How'd that work out for those native americans again? Maybe I'm a little reluctant to let things play out the way it did for them.
These people aren't anti-immigrant because of issues with immigration. They're anti-immigrant because they're hateful.
It's truly saddening that such a stance can still work when it's likely the average citizen will not encounter an immigrant in their day to day life. a million immigrants is not threatening the jobs of 300m Japanese people.
You are correct that we do not threaten jobs either. A large majority of the foreign population is working low/unskilled jobs. Generally, the native population is not wanting those jobs.
Tourists are short-term visitors who are there exclusively to spend their money in Japan and leave it with its citizens. If the Japanese do not want that because the tourists don't come fully prepared for living in Japan, then you should just deny tourist entries to the country. It would be win-win for everyone, because there are plenty of other countries who would gladly take those tourists instead.
They get blamed for a lot of crime; idk if that's true or not but it probably is, in part because American culture has less respect for authority, in part because American culture has more respect for individual liberties, and in part because any time you have a large enclave of foreigners (regardless of where they come from or which host nation they're in) they always end up committing more crime than the native population. They also get blamed for driving up prices in the real-estate market (this is definitely true, the US Navy owns 20% of Okinawa).
Blaming "immigrants" instead of specifically blaming the US military is also very convenient for both the US and Japanese government because both governments are largely in-favor of continuing the status quo so it's not surprising that politicians would obfuscate the source of the problem by blaming immigrants as a whole.
There is definitely a phenomenon of people sometimes supporting candidates on the basis that their ethnicity won't be used to criticize their policies but they're addressing a complaint that would be made otherwise. It also denies the agency of minorities by requiring them to be monolithic entities wherein all members agree with whatever you think their opinions should be. Would you really be satisfied if the entire trump administration was white Christian males over the age of 40?
One of the criticisms of the pro-life side of the abortion debate has always been that men are over-represented in the US federal government yet they're able to regulate an issue in which they are not directly effected. I don't know if you agree with this specific criticism or not but a lot of people do and I don't think it's fair to then complain about "tokenism" when somebody like Amy Coney Barrett who is immune to this argument gets appointed.
Bad people aren't limited to one race or anything. But far end politicians love propping up a minority on TV because then they can have an excuse whenever they're compared to historically bad political movements.
You're the only one bringing up white Christian males here, which kind of proves my point. You seem to think that for some reason I care if a politician is white or Christian. Extremist Islamic parties love propping up Christian minorities on TV and saying they'll defend them (they won't). Right wing western parties really, really love propping up a Jewish party member because they can say "we're not Nazis!!! All Nazis hated Jews and we love them!!!" Because the average person really thinks nazism was really only about killing Jewish people, when the reality was they only got around to that after several years of other awful stuff.
The LDP is propping up their 100% foreign born, foreign citizenship politician so they can say "see? We can't be anti-foreigner because the lady controlling this is a foreigner." The optics are transparent and it's even what they're astroturfing their message on social media as. Japanese politics are all about image. They don't pick a foreigner who illegally held dual citizenship to head anti-foreigner policies by accident.
Not really. Her mother is Japanese and they moved back when she was one year old.
Silver linings…
I’ve seen more people realize this since his Trump started beefing with Massie, but they still glaze him so hard as to not offend, that it’s basically meaningless.
I've seen some conspiracy theories that RFK, Jr, et al, want to start labor camps for autistic kids and just about anyone else his bunch can get tagged as defective or deficient or whatever, but I don't think that's going to work out like someone hopes it will.
Turns out Americans don't want to move out to rural areas to be paid minimum wage to do hard farm labor. Who knew?
That's the only real upside to this gig economy. Their competition isn't just flipping burgers, but anyone who has a car that can sign up to an app to make some quick cash.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251008104110/https://prospect....
A Reuters poll on the White House demolitions had a 63% approval for one question and a 40% approval rating for another question - from Republican voters.
As long as there exists a content economy on the right that does’t have to pay their dues to reality, you will not stop a political machine which is based upon fantasy.
The only thing that will cut through the noise is a recession, because that cannot be spun. Even then - that would just be a speed bump; eventually the recession will pass.
It was a bit weird for corrections to be arresting people in DC but a lot less weird for ICE to do it.
Isn't that role of ICE? To police and enforce immigration? Doesn't ICE stand for "Immigration & Customs Enforcement"?
What am I missing here?
There is no need for a "secret police" when that is the intended, declared and funded function of their organization.
So ICE, is in fact being shaped into a secret police that can be used to punish anyone speaking against the regime, under the guise of being a brutal anti-immigration force.
When a domestic law enforcement agency is spending 600% more year-over-year on weapons to point at people in frog costumes it's reasonable to wonder if that may reflect a de facto change in that organization.
In America, immigration enforcement is not a criminal issue but a civil issue. So the proper (as in, according to the laws and norms of the last many decades) and appropriate channels through which the enforcement of immigration is meant to be resolved is the courts. The current usage of ICE as a gestapo is literally illegal (it deprives "suspects" of due process and civil/human rights), in violation of Geneva conventions, and so on.
Furthermore even if we accept the blatantly immoral and illegal idea that federal agents should be able to break and enter into homes and kidnap, traumatize, and traffic people without the slightest pretense of legal justfiability (warrants etc), the fact is that they are not even attempting to choose people by any discernable metric other than their skin color. So it is objectively not about the enforcement of the law, it is about stochastic terrorism and ethnic cleansing, as that is the only thing their actions consistently demonstrate.
It's exactly because this is not a criminal issue, the due process in immigration does not require court hearing, bails etc. The immigration court is not an Article 3 court, it could as well be named "immigration adjudication department" because it's an Executive office. If you believe you had been wronged in the immigration process then you can try to sue the government for the damages in an actual civil court, but the law does not require the government to sue you in order to enforce the immigration laws.
"A secret police force" there means "a direct enforcement tool for whatever the oligarchy wants to do, legal or not".
This is where reporting and raid events from ICE come into play. That said, I'd like to see plenty of organizations actually have their leadership held accountable. The East Palestine, Ohio train derailment for example should have seen corporate executives and board members find their personal finances at risk because of the damage caused for example. The US has a very poor history of ever holding company executives accountable in general. "Too big to fail."
instead of assuming we want to stop illegal immigration and then asking why we don't do the obvious thing that would accomplish that goal (eliminating the incentive to hire illegally by punishing companies that do it such that it's not worth it on the balance sheet), look at what the situation actually is and ask yourself why people would want that. The situation right now is that there's a near-endless supply of labor that is 100% exempt from any and all labor protections by dint of if they complain the boss can just call immigration, who will disappear the laborers but not punish the company in any way. The occasional disruption due to unanticipated ice intervention is well worth the cost of being able to pay your laborers sub-minimum wage and not being responsible for workplace injuries or human rights violations.
How does this make sense when cities and states have openly declared themselves "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants?
How does this work when so many of the prisons are already overflowing? So much so, judges and prosecutors are not capable of sending more people to prisons and instead use diversion programs, down charging, or dismissing more serious crimes to charge these people with lesser crimes specifically in order to avoid jail time? What about states like Minnesota that continually deviate from sentencing guidelines and allow people convicted of crimes to spend the majority of their sentence out of prison? Minnesota isn't the only state that does this either, its just in the top five who do this.
The evidence would overwhelming appear to directly contradict this theory.
A) They're building more prisons specifically to fill with immigrants
B) Sentencing trends don't really affect immigrants who are denied due process.
Correction: They're building more prisons specifically to fill with ILLEGAL immigrants. The vast majority of whom have committed crimes while here.
If you have a problem with criminals being put in jail then you have a much bigger problem with your moral compass.
Why are you advocating breaking the law by treating non-criminals like criminals?
How do you imagine such an enforcement effort would proceed? Paint me a picture please. Illustrate a hypothetical example, just one company. What would really happen is that you'd check these businesses, and all the paperwork's in order. Social security numbers for everyone (even if those aren't their own). Without probable cause though, wouldn't even get that far, would they? They'd need that for the search warrants... not that judges are very agreeable to signing those, not when they tend to help illegals flee out the back door of the courthouse so that ICE won't wait at the front door grab and deport them.
>We are not fixing the root cause here even if you believe that immigration is bad for the country.
Sometimes all you can do is treat the symptoms.
It would fix the "problem" of all American workers who fear their job can be taken away by someone who doesn't speak the language, possibly has little education, because a large company thinks it's more profitable to hire them illegally. Nobody actually cares if someone hires their cousin at the family owned restaurant that sends money back home to his family.
But the goal actually is to have a section of society scared to report employer abuses and willing to work below minimum wage. The farmers in Iowa want the cruelty in Chicago. There was a tiny bit of deportation raids in red states at the beginning because of racism, but that was shut down quick.
You explain how to punish them, not how to determine that they deserve punishment. This fixes absolutely nothing. "Social security" won't find anything, because everyone working for those businesses has a social security number (even if it's not their own). To determine those are fake or misused, the government would have to get access to the deep HR paperwork, which would require search warrants and subpoenas, in other words, it would require "probable cause". That isn't going to happen.
>But the goal actually is to have a section of society scared to report employer abuse
Yeh, probably. But nothing you've described could help to change that circumstance.
E-verify has existed for more than a decade. Social security card + your name on another form of official identification like a license or passport. It comes back whether they are valid and match. Its literally a plot point in Superstore. You're describing a problem that only exist when the employer willingly bypasses the system, like in Superstore.
If the DMV has issued a driver's license with the fake name thats the problem of another agency and someone there has committed a fireable offense or crime since there has been large pushes across the country since the 9/11 hijackers to lock that down.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-will-allow-south-kor...
> South Korean companies have been mostly relying on short-term visas or a visa waiver program called the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, to send workers needed to launch manufacturing sites and handle other setup tasks, a practice that had been largely tolerated for years.
It sounds to me like they had relied on a grey area. The most obvious conclusion is that pressure from the top down in ICE caused their agents to "hunt around" and look for "big arrests." When political pressure from South Korea mounted they had to reverse themselves.
Either way, if these were actually workers in the country temporarily and in good faith to set up manufacturing, then it would neither seem to be a particularly good crackdown on illegal immigration nor encouraging manufacturing to be set up in the US.
The entire article you posted just referenced short term visas after the raid and said nothing other than the nationals who were arrested were flown home. The article spent less than a sentence with what OP posted:
The announcement came weeks after South Korea flew home more than 300 of its nationals who had been detained in a massive immigration raid at a battery factory being built on Hyundai’s sprawling auto plant campus near Savannah, Georgia.
From September when the raid happened:
"This was not an immigration operation where agents went into the premises, rounded up folks and put them on buses," Steve Schrank, the special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Atlanta, said at a news conference on Friday.
"This has been a multi-month criminal investigation where we have developed evidence, conducted interviews gathered documents and presented that evidence... in order to obtain a judicial search warrant," Schrank added.
He said it was "the largest single-site enforcement operation in the history of homeland security investigations".
"These [workers] are people that came through with Biden. They came through illegally."
Some 475 people who were in the country illegally or working unlawfully were detained in the operation, immigration officials said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6xe5d6103o
>> frozen water gang
>> the current admin and the frozen water gang
Why do you have a problem using the term ICE??
>The statement was consistent with earlier remarks by South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, who, after traveling to Washington to negotiate the workers’ release, said that U.S. officials had agreed to allow them to return later to complete their work.
You dont suddenly allow to return someone who was justifiably deported, regardless of what the agent in charge said in the immediate aftermath at a press conference.
There’s a book that makes an incredibly compelling case called Freedom’s Dominion, highly recommended.
Now when I hear “states’ rights” I complete the thought with, “…to do bad things to people we don’t really like”
Republicans don’t need to crow about states’ rights right now because they have an even bigger stick with which to oppress minorities.
The ultimate goal of Christian nationalists (a large part of the Republican Party) is to turn the United States into a single-party theocracy and implement their version of Sharira law. They probably don’t fully realize this is what they’re doing.
"They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
But $40 billion to Argentina and whatever Israel wants
glob·al·ist /ˈɡlōbəlist/ noun 1.) a person who advocates the administering or planning of a political strategy, economic system, etc. on a global rather than a national basis.
“[Right-libertarian populists] are unapologetically anti-globalist while at the same championing free trade and a realist foreign policy.”[1]
Both parties have furthered the advancement of global rule, one world government, top-down planning. In different ways, to be sure. Repubs for example voted in JD Vance, a man who was led by Peter Thiel, who as you know is advancing the surveillance state with Palantir. Peter made him who he is, and certainly has his ear. And Dems marched in lock-step with other globalists around the world in 2021-2024.
Global free trade, where individuals and not politicians decide who to trade with, as I understand it, is the _opposite_ of the dictionary’s definition of globalism. It is the smaller government that Republicans ostensibly stand for and then don’t provide.
Get government out of the way and let people be people.
[1] https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/right-libertarian...
They brandish the "don't tread on me flag" while cheering on Trump sending the national guard to blue cities (when the most violent cities in America are all red). They are supposedly against handouts, but watch Trump bail out the farmers and none of MAGA have anything to say about it. Because a majority of farmers vote red.
They wouldn't have any issue with actual socialism, as long as it only benefitted republican voters.
Ice Agents: "Is <name> here illegally?" AI prompt: "you're absolutely right!"
I hear that lazy LEOs now use AI to write police reports. Noice. And the AI can trivially show up for hearings.
In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.
In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.
> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?
Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime.
Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court against such accusations.
When someone is allegedly a murderer, or a thief, or a vandal, or whatever... a trial is needed to determine guilt or innocence.
But when they arrest someone for those things, the preliminary process allows police to determine someone's identity. Their address, things of that nature. Their basic information. Basic information is all that is needed to determine whether or not someone is a citizen. There is no trial needed to determine citizenship.
>Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court
No, you attended public school and someone had you memorize "due process" in 3rd grade and you never were taught what it meant. It does not guarantee "a defense in court", because in this case there is no crime to defend against. No one's wanting to send them to prison. In the simplest terms, due process is the idea that the government must have a process for a particular legal proceeding, and that if someone must undergo that proceeding they get the same process everyone else does. If rich people were getting to skip out of the proceeding, or get a shortened one, but you had to go through the entire thing... it'd be a due process violation. Or alternatively if you wanted that proceeding and they were getting to skip it (say you had a full 30 day period to file, but they canceled your filing that same day) you'd have a due process violation.
It seems like at your school they didn't mention habeas corpus or Magna Carta? Maybe it sounded too scary and foreign?
Habeas doesn't apply... no one's trying to prosecute them for a crime. The juvenile confusion you're experiencing, where you believe deportation to be some sort of punishment for a crime, rather than merely the immediate remedy for someone who doesn't belong where they are, well it's bizarre.
If someone breaks into your home tonight, do you think the police can't remove them from the house until after the trial?
It doesn't. If a cop stops you on the sidewalk for 10 minutes, that's being "detained", but they don't need to meet the burden of first going to a judge and presenting the evidence required in habeas. Which is all of the detention that occurs in these cases, after that it becomes deportation.
But, should habeas be required of deportation, then only proof required for that is "here is the documentation showing lack of citizenship".
That's ok. They can be pardoned for that crime, I do not with to see them prosecuted or incarcerated. Sending them home is enough.
>That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime.
Nope. Just accused of being a non-citizen, which if it turns out to be true, is de facto proof that they do not have the right to reside within the United States. Citizenship = right to live here. Not all rights are fundamental, voting and residence belong only to citizens.
So if the executive decides they suspect you are an illegal alien, detains you, claims to have checked you are an illegal alien, and then expels you to some foreign country you have no right to challenge this at any point in the process?
Because if that’s what you think “due process” means, than the government never has any need for criminal process at all, it just needs to decide it suspects people of being illegal aliens instead of criminals, then it can imprison them indefinitely while it “checks” and expel them whenever it decides it tires or imprisoning them (perhaps to someplace it knows they will be killed or deprived of then nevessities of life), all without ever defending any of those acts as justified in court.
Maybe a court case?
Doesn't justify anything that ICE are currently doing though.
It's just a simple matter of checking the ESTA details online, and your entry stamp in your passport.
The ESTA visa states you waive your rights to a judge if you overstay.
Like I said, I am not condoning what ICE is doing.
If you would read the articles where people are griping about this case or that case, none of these immigrants have contested it with a "but I'm a citizen". I suspect this is because they know that won't fly. For the amazingly few cases where a citizen is temporarily detained, many of those cases are leftists trying to jam ICE up by not making the claim and hoping they overstep.
None of those that have made the news are cases where it goes to court because the detainee claims citizenship and ICE denies it.
Just like other ML and big data LEO projects in the past, assume the use of AI is to greenlight what they already want to do and would like a fig leaf of justification for from a computer.
The most memorable thing from that talk was the given definition of "intercepted communication," which to their definition simply meant that a HUMAN agent had catalogued some piece of information.
The official story I was told, still pre-Snowden — while working a contract electrician gig for a state three-letter agency data center — was that it would simply be impossible to retain that much data [and I would then walk in to 100k-sqft+ floor with petabytes of storage].
In those days metadata was among the fancier data-gathering tools (ahh... simpler times!), and now we have machines which effectively think/schizoid-out on infinite amounts of data —— all non-human [so therefore non-intercepted] data.
Add me to this list, too, clanker.
Happy surfing.
Assume you live in a country 50/50 red and blue people. Red wins the election and the new leader cracks down on the blues hard for how they look. Replace this with any arbitrary law that benefits one group at the expense of another for no purpose.
Assuming one of the arbitrary rules is not to destroy the elections (yet), and blue manages to gain back control, the same arbitrary power now falls into blue hands. You will rarely see power being returned (the root cause of rot), and now blue is free to make arbitrary rules and persecute any color they wish. In effect, red voted against their interests long-term, for short-term advantage.
At the moment we have masked and license plate tampering hit squads (with no accountability, they can claim even a daylight bank robbery wasn’t ICE.. try to prove or fight it).
Imagine the next president is a man like Putin, with not just the intelligence, but the will to seize permanent control. We’re handing keys to our jailers over overblown online rhetoric and fear. Now we’re targeting specific groups, profiling based on if they look “illegal”. Where have we seen this happen before and leading to a second war?
STOP giving the government power people. It doesn’t end well. Of the people and for the people only works when don’t give deity-like power to our stewards.
I don't see any benefit to not determining everyone who is in an area at a specific time a citizen or eligible for citizenship.
Right?
You pay tax direct as us residents, or as tariff if you are in rest of world.
Tariffs on goods coming into the US are paid by US residents. (Just had to pay customs to clear a shipment from the UK - I had to pay the tariffs, not the seller.)
[FLAG] 'HIZONNER' CAT3-SDA-HN: DISSIDENT DEPORTATION ALERT