A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

What I find interesting, particularly in a land of 'stand your ground' that, when a bunch of unidentifiable dudes pointing weapons and yelling 'get out of your car' under one set of circumstances are celebrated for resisting but under others are expected to acquiesce.

People imitating agents is a legitimate worry, but subject to common sense. When there are a lot of them, and they are hanging around, and particularly if some activists are convinced enough to be blowing whistles and horns and putting out messages on social media reporting the presence of ICE agents, they are probably ICE agents.

They (he) might try to argue his life was endanger, and he might or might not be successful. It can't be ignored that the whole set of circumstances might have been predicated by an illegal act, and I suspect it wasn't on the part of the victim.

Every interference with law enforcement is a set of circumstances. Bear in mind that some of these people aren't just making it up on the fly - there are suggested TTPs activists circulate for how to "de-arrest" people in custody. All the attention is going to be focused on the ones that end badly to the discredit of the administration, so it'll be difficult to judge how much risk is being created by activists and mouthpieces - particularly those who have plenty of advice to offer to others, and not so much intent to risk themselves.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Keep in mind the US for many decades encouraged illegal immigration and workers because it was a cheap source of labour.

"the US" lumps all the people who objected all along and wanted the laws as written enforced, in with all the people who for ideological or economic reasons wanted the immigration. That's not an accurate description of the situation.

Many of these people were literally paying taxes for a system they couldn’t be part of, working jobs most Americans wanted nothing to do with for less money than what is legal to pay a American.

All true, and all beside the point. That people break laws or allow laws to be broken is usually because its to some benefit.

Trump has decided to end that system in the most unfair and violent manner possible. Realistically they should have offered citizenship to those who had been there a while with no criminal record and contributed well slowly working out others.

In 1986 the US (Reagan and Congress) did an amnesty deal (IRCA) which was supposed to be followed by increased enforcement (eg. crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants). The people who wanted only the amnesty part got what they wanted, and the enforcement was allowed to just go away. There's dispute about whether or in what way Reagan regretted the latter - he was definitely pro-amnesty - but any remarks he made were essentially to only a few people. (Obviously anyone who claims he never said anything could not be physically present for everything Reagan ever subsequently said.) Others, however, accurately characterize the bones of the deal as amnesty today for enforcement tomorrow, and they rightly note the deal was essentially broken. In 2012 Obama did DACA after earlier stating he didn't believe he had constitutional authority to do such a thing. So the situation for people who object to immigration law not being enforced is that they want to see enforcement well established before talking about amnesty. There is no good faith on which they can rely.

Instead we have armed masked thugs arresting American citizens and disappearing them to other states with no due process. If you need to always wear a mask to do your job because of the risk of being identified maybe your not working a particularly honourable job and should reconsider your life decisions.

Tolerance of illegal immigration has become such an embedded part of some people's ideology that they vilify every aspect of enforcement and actively work to thwart enforcement of US federal law. That influences others, some of whom act.

At least some of the reported incidents of attacks on ICE agents by third parties, with or without vehicles, are likely to be true. Suppose the government orders de-masking. Suppose one is identified, and someone shows up at his house, and does something violent or even merely threatening. What then? Acceptable risk? But families are involved; it isn't just the officer facing the risk. Maybe they push through, prosecute the offender(s), and the risk drops off. Fine.

But one thing activists want is for agents to apprehend personal risk sufficiently to refuse - in effect, to nullify enforcement of federal law. It's a bad idea to allow that on legal principle, and an even worse one politically. The people who favour enforcement will be elevated to new levels of anger and thus even less interested in compromise on anything.

 

[FSTO]

I cannot believe we are actually debating the merits of ICE’s actions of shooting that woman who was no danger to the agent. Or the idea of ICE swarming a place with the attitude, “arrest them all and let God sort them out!”. Would we be fine with the RCMP striking at a high school in Brampton to arrest the parents of a couple of students who may or may not have come to the country illegally. Are we really all that stupid?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Keep in mind the US for many decades encouraged illegal immigration and workers because it was a cheap source of labour.

Many of these people were literally paying taxes for a system they couldn’t be part of, working jobs most Americans wanted nothing to do with for less money than what is legal to pay a American.

Trump has decided to end that system in the most unfair and violent manner possible. Realistically they should have offered citizenship to those who had been there a while with no criminal record and contributed well slowly working out others.

Instead we have armed masked thugs arresting American citizens and disappearing them to other states with no due process. If you need to always wear a mask to do your job because of the risk of being identified maybe your not working a particularly honourable job and should reconsider your life decisions.

So you're OK with 10-20 million illegal aliens invading the US?

Just for shiggles, Trump isn't the record holder. His current score, for this term, is about 600,000 forceful deportations and 1.6 million self deportees.

| President | Returns | Removals |
|—————-|————-|————|
| Reagan | 7,992,746 | 100,000 |
| H.W. Bush | 4,728,471 | 200,000 |
| Clinton | 10,000,905 | 870,000 |
| W. Bush | 10,039,724 | 2,000,000 |
| Obama | 2,000,000 | 3,000,000 |
| Trump | 500,000 | 2,000,000 |
| Biden | 100,000 | 500,000 |

Deportations Under US Presidents: Surprising Statistics - Infographic Website

Explore deportation statistics under U.S. presidents, highlighting policy shifts and their impact on numbers and community effects.

infographicsite.com

I'm assuming these numbers mean that none of these administrations were very keen on the cheap labour either. Much more so than Trump is.

The link provides some clarity to your cursory allegations.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Tolerance of illegal immigration has become such an embedded part of some people's ideology that they vilify every aspect of enforcement and actively work to thwart enforcement of US federal law. That influences others, some of whom act.

At least some of the reported incidents of attacks on ICE agents by third parties, with or without vehicles, are likely to be true. Suppose the government orders de-masking. Suppose one is identified, and someone shows up at his house, and does something violent or even merely threatening. What then? Acceptable risk? But families are involved; it isn't just the officer facing the risk. Maybe they push through, prosecute the offender(s), and the risk drops off. Fine.

But one thing activists want is for agents to apprehend personal risk sufficiently to refuse - in effect, to nullify enforcement of federal law. It's a bad idea to allow that on legal principle, and an even worse one politically. The people who favour enforcement will be elevated to new levels of anger and thus even less interested in compromise on anything.

Hiding one’s face well doing standard government work is wrong. It is like drafting laws and not having any politician sign their name to it or giving who voted where. Or having a judge sentence someone but not attaching their name or the names of who is charged and convicted. Accountability is critical in a free and democratic society, unaccountable masked agents is a feature of Soviet society not ours.

There is slight risk to being identified (certainly not much in the grand scheme of things), but that comes with the territory. Just like there is risk in the road rager behind me identifying where I live, it is all part of life.

The US has a huge issue with extremists on both sides doing wrong. Between mailing pizzas to judges and families to show they know where they live, to actively killing politicians who they disagree with (both democratic and republican).

As to people not agreeing with Federal law, that is part of democracy, you don’t get to just rule from above and expect the plebs to fall in line. It isn’t a dictatorship and if there is enough pushback against what ever it is you’re doing, maybe it should be changed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I cannot believe we are actually debating the merits of ICE’s actions of shooting that woman who was no danger to the agent. Or the idea of ICE swarming a place with the attitude, “arrest them all and let God sort them out!”. Would we be fine with the RCMP striking at a high school in Brampton to arrest the parents of a couple of students who may or may not have come to the country illegally. Are we really all that stupid?

There's more to it than that.

Also debatable are the risks of interfering with law enforcement. The reasonable expectations of restraint. Whether it's acceptable to nullify law enforcement. Whether it's politically wise or unwise to nullify law enforcement. What effect overwrought emotions or mere political ideology are having on the conduct of people on both sides. Etc.

The shooting might be wrongful, or it might be tragic. Most people have already decided, but there is not uniform agreement.

I'm almost always in the position of arguing for more police restraint and that authorities ought to cut dissidents more slack; it's unusual for me to be providing support for blunt force law enforcement and what has me over that fence is the peculiarity that what has set it all in motion is attempts to nullify federal law on a massive scale. I've (long ago) argued that the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge were avoidable and ought to have been avoided. There are, conversely, people who believe everything the government did in those two cases was reasonable and necessary, and that everything the government is doing now is unreasonable and unnecessary. My point isn't to litigate all these and more; my point is that it's often easy to argue authorities ought to have conducted themselves differently and also that people on the wrong side of the law are responsible for outcomes.

 

[Good2Golf]

So you're OK with 10-20 million illegal aliens invading the US?

Just for shiggles, Trump isn't the record holder. His current score, for this term, is about 600,000 forceful deportations and 1.6 million self deportees.

| President | Returns | Removals |
|—————-|————-|————|
| Reagan | 7,992,746 | 100,000 |
| H.W. Bush | 4,728,471 | 200,000 |
| Clinton | 10,000,905 | 870,000 |
| W. Bush | 10,039,724 | 2,000,000 |
| Obama | 2,000,000 | 3,000,000 |
| Trump | 500,000 | 2,000,000 |
| Biden | 100,000 | 500,000 |

Deportations Under US Presidents: Surprising Statistics - Infographic Website

Explore deportation statistics under U.S. presidents, highlighting policy shifts and their impact on numbers and community effects.

infographicsite.com

I'm assuming these numbers mean that none of these administrations were very keen on the cheap labour either. Much more so than Trump is.

The link provides some clarity to your cursory allegations.

What data would full a fourth column, “deaths under deportation custody?”

 

[Brad Sallows]

As to people not agreeing with Federal law, that is part of democracy, you don’t get to just rule from above and expect the plebs to fall in line. It isn’t a dictatorship and if there is enough pushback against what ever it is you’re doing, maybe it should be changed.

Right, and legitimate civil disobedience means accepting consequences. If you carry disobedience to the point they say, "Fine, you're under arrest", you hold out your wrists. If you don't, you should expect to be responsible for most of what follows if it escalates. If you do something provocative before that point, you're also at least partly responsible depending on how your actions could be interpreted. So it has to be done responsibly, and by that I mean that as much as police have responsibilities they're expected to fulfill, so do ordinary people.

There are people who are at fault for specific things, and people who could reasonably have prevented something.

As for the notion that authorities and their delegates don't get to just rule from above (pass laws and enforce them), amen. I could wish it were so. But that's not the standard position of politicians, police, lawyers, and judges, except for those few whose political priors take precedence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What data would full a fourth column, “deaths under deportation custody?”

Search "deaths in US custody". Lots of recent ICE-focused articles.

For general comparison: here for recent years up to 2023.

 

[Good2Golf]

Search "deaths in US custody". Lots of recent ICE-focused articles.

For general comparison: here for recent years up to 2023.

Not deportation specific.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not deportation specific.

"deaths in US custody" (no mention of ICE or deportation or any other such thing in my search terms) gave me an AI-assisted result and four other results specifically mentioning or about ICE before the general link I provided.

The information is there for those who actually want it.

 

[lenaitch]

seen this. Accurate?

Yes, ICE Is Law Enforcement—But Their Authority Has Limits You Need To Know

ICE is federal law enforcement with arrest authority—but ICE agents can't enter your home without a judge's warrant. Learn what ICE can and cannot do.

allaboutlawyer.com

also this

View attachment 97695

and this

View attachment 97696

again accurate?

Agree, but even before that, I am unclear (and don't expect an answer, it's just part of boxes to be ticked in the investigation of events such as this), is scope of authority for ICE to do things like make a vehicle stop, demand identification, make an arrest, etc. No doubt they would have to be in furtherance of whatever statute they are enforcing. If it is anything like up here, if you are charged with obstructing a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duty, if it turns out that what they were doing was not, in fact, lawful, the charge would likely be tossed.

You reject an official government document, out of hand, but accept the word of a former cartel member as proof? It sounds like your opposition is based, not on proof, but on your distaste for the current administration. Your assertion that there is no such thing as a bounty list, based on dubious sources, is not fact, it's opinion.

I posted some stats awhile back, generated by AI and was roundly pillored for it. It appears AI is not a respected source for use here.

Federal law trumps state law. Newsom, et al, can pass all the laws they want. Feds can effectively ignore them.

Bottom line, at the moment, no law exists stopping LEO from wearing face coverings. So, they can continue to wear them. People might not like it, can pick their favorite windmill to tilt at, and raise unholy hell. Doesn’t make a lick of difference.

And before I get too involved, that's where I stand. Take it for what it's worth. I'm out.

I'm certainly no US Constitutional expert, but I don't think the 'federal law trumps state law' is as applicable as it is up here. Their Constitution establishes very clear lanes between state and federal jurisdiction, and if a particular area is not addressed or unclear, it defaults to the state; whereas up here it would default to the federal government.

A state can make a law about law enforcement face covering, but it would only apply to state/county/municipal personnel. In that sense, it would not apply to federal agents, but that is not the same as 'trumping' the state. Similarly, the federal government can pass a law that says all law enforcement must wear pink tutus, but it would only apply to federal LEOs.

 

[FSTO]

There's more to it than that.

Also debatable are the risks of interfering with law enforcement. The reasonable expectations of restraint. Whether it's acceptable to nullify law enforcement. Whether it's politically wise or unwise to nullify law enforcement. What effect overwrought emotions or mere political ideology are having on the conduct of people on both sides. Etc.

The shooting might be wrongful, or it might be tragic. Most people have already decided, but there is not uniform agreement.

I'm almost always in the position of arguing for more police restraint and that authorities ought to cut dissidents more slack; it's unusual for me to be providing support for blunt force law enforcement and what has me over that fence is the peculiarity that what has set it all in motion is attempts to nullify federal law on a massive scale. I've (long ago) argued that the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge were avoidable and ought to have been avoided. There are, conversely, people who believe everything the government did in those two cases was reasonable and necessary, and that everything the government is doing now is unreasonable and unnecessary. My point isn't to litigate all these and more; my point is that it's often easy to argue authorities ought to have conducted themselves differently and also that people on the wrong side of the law are responsible for outcomes.

No. That meathead should be charged with 2nd degree murder full stop. He was damn lucky he didn’t put a round into his partner who tried to open the car door.
The ICE crew from Kristy all the way down to that agent are out of control and have no business being in charge of wellhead security on the North Slope of Alaska let alone LARPING about the USA being class one assholes.
You can quote all the US Laws you want but that doesn’t hide the fact this administration couldn’t give two shits about laws, rights or even common decency. The whole crew needs to be perped walked down Pennsylvania Ave as they are sent to Gitmo to be measured for orange coveralls.

 

[HavokFour]

Minnesota is moving ahead, FBI be damned.

Minnesota launches own probe of ICE shooting after FBI freezes out locals

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced the investigation after the FBI took sole ownership of investigating the shooting.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

You can quote all the US Laws

Well, yeah, they're the relevant laws.

 

[FSTO]

Well, yeah, they're the relevant laws.

Don't seem to be for this administration.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't seem to be for this administration.

If that were the case, they wouldn't bother arguing their points in the courts at all. Even arguing for due process has a process that takes time and has to be exhausted.

 

[FSTO]

If that were the case, they wouldn't bother arguing their points in the courts at all. Even arguing for due process has a process that takes time and has to be exhausted.

Colour me not surprised when this agent isn't even charged.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Colour me not surprised when this agent isn't even charged.

Maybe. I regularly check headlines and occasionally read articles at reason.com, and police-related abuses (their, meaning typically libertarian, view) are a common topic there. Sometimes charges are filed and stick, but more often something like qualified immunity governs the outcome. Eventually I expect such an article about this shooting to show up there, whichever way it falls.

 

[Good2Golf]

Colour me not surprised when this agent isn't even charged.

Good’s spouse will be charged with felony murder long before Officer Ross ever sees a charge laid against him, as some have begun to make the case that the spouse’s dismounting of the vehicle resulted in Officer Ross having to sweep in front of the car and then admitting fault for Good’s death afterwards.