Edit 2: Before reading on don't bother, this person isn't American so has no understanding of what the words they are typing mean in the American system, that immigration judges aren't Article III criminal judges, that immigration violations are civil violations not criminal, etc.
Being honest/truthful really doesn't matter to you folks, does it? You made a claim that was bullshit to try and sway people. And are willing to sacrifice the unimportant 'due process' that we have in the USA. You all really believe in nothing, and especially don't believe in America.
Edit: You are trying to confuse/blend 'deporting criminals' to be something other than the American understanding of criminal, and you know it. I'm not wasting further time on your bad faith word spinning. You don't understand/care about the American system, you just want to abuse words to paint a false picture. Sad that we have so many people like you in our country that don't' understand it/believe in it, and would give up the security we tried to build into it at the cost of blood for your personal short term political reasons.
Isn't "due process" for an illegal immigrant already happened in the sense that they are determined to be an illegal?
Trump had deporting illegals in his campaign and got mandate from the people. You don't seem to believe in democracy instead.
Edit: The note about pending charges is just a note. Trump's platform was to deport all illegal immigrants, not only who have been convicted of other crimes as well (they did start with the convicted though). You don't need to waste time, but you need to be able to point to where the bad faith arguments and word spinning are. To me it looks like the democrats are mobilizing those who don't quite understand what losing an election means in a democratic country. If your view is that American system is something else, e.g, "only what the Democratic wants to do should be done", then you would need to push this through your system.
You talk about America yet don't understand our most basic concept of law. "These people just haven't been convicted - yet." is so fucking anti-American it's crazy to see someone just drop it as a rebuttal here.
You added that after your claim: "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals"
You then try to wordsmith criminal into to 'illegal immigrants'. These people are being deported on Civil law violations. Not criminal. If it was criminal ICE wouldn't be able to use immigration courts and their special carvouts for not following the constitution. You don't seem to understand any American basic civics in addition to your not understanding your own statement 'ICE is also deporting mostly criminals'
You're further expanding makes your original statement obvious bad faith spin that wasn't true and that you didn't actually care about.
I have never been registered as a Democrat in my life, and was libertarian for the majority of it. Again you ignorantly make statements you have zero idea are true or not. Democracy isn't 'I won, I get to throw away the system of laws and violate the constitution'.
Edit: Got it, by saying "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals" what you meant was everyone they deport they have determined (in Immigration court and by immigration judges not real Article III judges on civil violations and not in Criminal court under criminal law violations sentenced by real Article III Judges) 'are criminals'. You don't understand American civics. You don't understand the definition of the word 'criminal'. You don't understand Democracy doesn't mean 'free to do whatever you want when elected' mob rule.
Right. The original poster who was saying that only ("only"!) 29% of January deportees have been convicted, that is correct. To this I added that that percentage doesn't account for ongoing charges (also true, right?). No disagreement in the percentage arguments.
The rest of the immigrants are still illegally in the country, no? Wasn't deporting them on the campaign platform that got the mandate? What is "the system" if not this?
If your interpretation of the constitution is that as long as you are "protesting" then you can do anything, be anywhere, including whistle along an ongoing police operation then I can tell you that that interpretation is not correct. If it were, any criminal (not need be immigrant) would say that they were "protesting", while robbing a store or doing any other random actually criminal thing.
Edit: I get what you are saying, too, but the practical solution isn't to keep current illegal immigrants in, as in that case anyone attempting to enter legally should just switch to enter illegally as that is more efficient. (I.e, if there is some country-wide entry rate, then the currently illegally entered have succeeded by jumping the line.)
The above is also the platform that was voted into office not long ago. This does look like democracy to me.
What mandate? Trump did not secure a large enough victory for anyone to reasonably claim he was handed a mandate. Did the Republicans ever respect Biden's "mandate" on his issues, with a similar EV victory and a huge popular vote victory? Hell, Trump didn't even get half the popular vote.
Nor do single issues get mandates even when a president does have an overwhelming victory. Voters do not select specific issues to vote on, they vote for a person based on their overall platform.
Trump also talked about how he was going to focus on deporting violent criminals. And now that that is no longer the case, the goalpost is being moved to... any crimes. And now again to anyone that has outstanding charges, but no conviction. And now it's hey, they're here illegally, so that's a crime, right! We'll have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of those being deported also entered using a legal process that puts them in limbo - ICE has been grabbing people showing up at their immigration court cases.
I'd call it the presidential victory mandate. I guess he shouldn't actually do what he promised as the victory wasn't large enough? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
W̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶d̶d̶y̶.̶ We were founded on the fucking Boston Tea Party. Yeah, we trade off conveniences in policing for freedom of the people. I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶v̶e̶. There are plenty of non-freedom loving countries out there.
I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶r̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶i̶v̶i̶c̶s̶. You seem kind of ignorant to like the basic premise of our nation or how/why we arrived at it.
Edit: My bad for being hard on you. I assumed you were American and we were talking from a common framework of understanding. American democracy was created to prevent mob rule, not enable it. You can run on whatever you want, it doesn't mean that what you run on is allowed under our system of laws, even if popular with the mob. Most of our families were forced to flee to the USA because 'the mob' wanted us dead, or to criminalize our existence, or force us to change religions. WE FUCKING HATE MOB RULE, AND WE FUCKING HATE KINGS WITH UNCHECKED POWER. Immigration law is not criminal law in the USA (it's a loophole to apply lower standards than the Constitution requires). Immigration courts aren't finding someone as being a criminal, they are finding a civil law violation. Immigration judges aren't real judges. Article III Judges are real judges as empowered by the Constitution.
I don't live in the US. Also I edited my parent answer (but no need to edit yours. Continue below at will.)
I maintain that what was voted in the office a year ago was to deport the illegals, not only those who have committed other crimes as well. I might just as well say that you are ignorant of the democratic process instead. And if you think that the US will be a "free entry" country as it was after the discovery of the continent then I guess you live at a part of the country where the newly arrived immigrants aren't disturbing your life yet.
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
Btw, do you happen to know, why electrek.co changed their tune in such a way? I was commenting on a similarly negative story by the same site, and said that they are always anti-Tesla. But then somebody pointed out that this wasn't always the case, that they were actually supportive, but then suddenly turned.
Fred Lambert was an early Tesla evangelist - he constantly wrote stories praising Tesla and Elon for years. He had some interactions with Elon on Twitter, got invited to Tesla events, referred enough people to earn free Tesla cars, etc.
If we assume the best (per HN guidelines): Up to about 2018 Tesla was the market-leading EV company, and the whole thesis of Electrek is that EVs are the future. So, of course they covered Tesla frequently and in a generally positive light.
Since then, the facts have changed. Elon's become increasingly erratic, and has been making increasingly unhinged claims about Tesla's current and future products. At the same time, Tesla's offerings are far behind domestic standards, which are even further behind international competition. Also, many people have died due to obvious Tesla design flaws (like the door handles, and false advertising around FSD).
Journalistic integrity explains the difference in coverage over the years. Coverage from any fact-based outlet would have a similar shift in sentiment.
In my comments, I add opinions after the facts. Nor have I been donwvoted to oblivion. IMO, the people who I reply to aren't really acquainted with the facts.
I on the other hand happen to be a "bootlicker", while their opinion seems to be that it's ok to interfere with police work, and that the person that got shot did nothing wrong..
This model defines a few different categories of how people respond - "Withdrawal","Attack-Self" and "Avoidance", "Attack-Other".
If you were to look at your comments through the threads here, would you be able to classify your responses as matching any of the categories above?
As a hint, you may be surprised to learn the person with multiple comments in question I was referring to isn't you. Yet you've sought this out and decided the most suitable response to why are two groups posting responses at different rates is to attempt to relitigate an imagined argument.
I don't live in the US and do agree that Trump is hectic at times. I don't really argue for ICE because of some emotional reason.
Trump had deportions of illegals on his agenda, they were creating trouble at certain locations (perhaps a tiny minority on US map), people voted Trump, he is keeping his promises. The protesters probably don't even know who is being currently captured..
They are protesting against the democratic outcome. But don't understand that when you're the minority, you can't have both the (1) "what you want", and (2) democracy.
ICE isn't doing police work (police are somewhat accountable to their local populace for keeping people safe), they're ostensibly (selectively) enforcing federal immigration regulation.
But please for the love of god explain how "not following orders" is grounds for immediate extrajudicial execution? because your
"their opinion seems to be ... that the person that got shot did nothing wrong"
definitely seems to imply that 'doing something wrong' justifies any reaction up to and including being shot in the head or magdumped in the back?
Lethal force wielded by unmasked, uniformed, badge-wearing, and bodycam'd police officers is already fraught with enough issues as it is... And at least they occasionally face investigation and punitive measures when they fuck up on the (admittedly very difficult) job and harm civilians unlawfully.
A woman not getting out of the car when being ordered to by unknown masked men bearing weapons is reasonable.
Shooting an unarmed civilian who poses no threat to you is not reasonable. It only serves to undermine the entire apparatus of civil governance as well as the bill of rights that the US government was founded upon. It's shameful and disgusting.
And yes, you're accurately labled a bootlicker if you make excuses to the contrary about how it's _ackshually ok_ to shoot and kill people who don't listen to you because boohoo they made your job harder.
If instead you decide you don't actually want to make such an indefensible stand, and instead motte and bailey your way around the issue by trying to talk about obstruction of enforcement of laws, and fall all the way back to "well ICE is allowed to invade places to get the dirty immigrants, so really all the law-abiding citizens would be fine if they just got out of the way", then you're a coward who wont accept the consequences of their own line of argumentation.
Murdering people (Renee Good) who pose no threat to you is wrong. Full stop. Whether that person did something worthy of a misdemeanor, or arrest, or some other LAWFUL CONSEQUENCE is a different matter entirely.
ICE's continued and flagrant misconduct is a breakdown of the Rule of Law, which literally only works if the populace maintains enough trust in those entrusted to enforce and uphold the law. Destroying that (precious little remaining) trust in a politically motivated boondoggle to "own the libs" is a colossal fuckup.
While I do agree that this was tragic sequence of events, then the whistle protesters, carrying a gun and then getting between an officer and the woman is what brought it to the current conclusion.
Go protest in some square, don't protest at ICE carrying out its work. Should this event somehow disqualify ICE, you'll see the Trump opposers hugging every criminal in the country. "Full stop" (as if rhetoric devices ever strenghtened an argument..)
Protesting ICE while they work is constitutionally protected free speech.
You are saying that people should give up their most important rights simply to avoid inconveniencing the government. It is the grossest form of bootlicking I've ever seen.
It may just be that soon the protesters discover that you can simply go and hug a criminal as "protest" and then blame it on law enforcement should anything negative happen to them. I guess your interpretation would still be that it's "constitutionally protected free speech"? I beg to differ and also think the legalities of these situations will likely be hashed out soon enough.
You can add other "real" statements like "the sky is blue" and "water is wet" it still doesn't make it right lol. You can't say "both sides" when one side is a federal agency showing 0 accountability/responsibility/restraint/professionalism and the other is just a dude with a phone who gets between these thugs and a bystander
They fucked it up from A to Z, stop licking the boot.
The "bystander" was walking along with the officers blowing a whistle, and the guy that got between that bystander ("bystander") carried a gun. I don't think it's wise to interfere with police work by walking with them and doing that whistle thing and it's neither wise to bring a gun into this situation.
I'm sure the officers to whom this happened aren't happy either as this turned out, but I don't think they are the the only ones to blame.
Similar with the woman who was shot: should you be doing any police getaways or even driving towards any police officer?
legally. Also the gun he visibly did not reach for. And the very same gun that was carried out of the scene seconds before the first shot was fired.
> I don't think it's wise to interfere with police work
So what? If they were trained for anything other than escalation nothing would have happened, they're ""professional"" ""law enforcement officers"" from a federal agency, not a biker gang
> I'm sure the officers to whom this happened aren't happy either as this turned out
One of them literally claps his hands, it's on video, lmao, you can't make that shit up
> Similar with the woman who was shot: should you be doing any police getaways or even driving towards any police officer?
The one who got killed by a shot to the temple which basically proves the officer was completely out of the way at that time. The one where the officer then illegally fled the scene, packed up his house and then later pretended to be heavily injured and have "internal bleeding" despite being seen totally unharmed multiple times earlier.
What do you think of these sub 80iq ICE retards who just tried to break in the Ecuadorian consulate? Just doing their job I assume? Come on, keep on gargling these balls, idk if you expect to get a medal or something...
How it went down was while the gun was taken away, somebody yelled "gun", then guns were drawn, then the victims gun went off which triggered police starting shooting. If this were the events, the first shot was what unfortunately triggered the tragedy that followed, as the law enforcement officers probably thought that the person being arrested was shooting.
To me this looks like an unfortunate sequence of events rather than your judgement from the high horse of perfect information.
If you go to a protest, best leave your (legal) weapons at home, don't interfere nor resist law enforcement.
Also, if you want a better government, you should vote one in the office and not fuel these events after the fact.
> then the victims gun went off which triggered police starting shooting.
None of the videos show that at all, the victim's gun is safely brought away, clearly visible from multiple point of view
What's also clearly visible is that a masked gentleman from ICE get his gun out, instantly put his finger on the trigger and aim for the victim's back/head
> rather than your judgement from the high horse of perfect information.
Again, they're not a biker gang, they should be well trained and not shoot when someone yells "gun". Some seem to have been scared by their shots coming from their fellow brain dead colleagues.
> don't interfere nor resist law enforcement.
Yes, lick the boot and let the popo do whatever they want regardless of legality
Of course when all you do is gargle the popo's balls, follow orders, believe state propaganda and turn a blind eye when provided with video evidences the whole thing is a simple "unfortunate sequence of events", meanwhile in any other advanced societies it would be an instant scandal with severe repercussions on everyone involved
The people involved can't recreate the past, now with better information. But I can tell you that showing up in a protest with a gun, and also putting your hands on a law enforcement officer aren't good ideas.
Overall, restricting police work but calling these protests, aren't a good strategy either. The presidential vote is over, the majority wants this. It's you who's subject to the losing side's propaganda.
> Overall, restricting police work but calling these protests, aren't a good strategy either.
Happens all the time in dozens of civilised countries without anyone getting magdumped.
> The presidential vote is over, the majority wants this.
Majority... of voters. He's at less than 40% approval right now. And even if, that's not how democracy works, elections aren't a 1 time card to do whatever the fuck you want for the next X years
> It's you who's subject to the losing side's propaganda.
I don't even live in that shit hole, I have no horses in the race, simply eyes to see. Only a rotten americanoid brain could see this and be like "oh well it's really unfortunate BUT ... he kinda deserved it you know, guns and shit"
If you approve of interfering with police work then we won't be finding middle ground here. Perhaps the special ingredient in the US is the popularity of carrying weapons, it's know to cause other shootings as well.
As for approval ratings, I'm sure you know elections work: they happen periodically and the approval ratings don't have a direct effect on current events. Also, deporting illegals (what these protests are against) was on the campaign platform, so it's nowhere near "whatever the f. you want".
As you, I also have "eyes to see" which still makes the basis I'm coming from. And I'm also not American.
They are demanding "show me your papers" to citizens, often chasing, arresting and jailing them for being brown, and turning the US into a police state.
Because they are Americans? Under the Fourth Amendment, police cannot demand ID from a pedestrian for no reason. Other constitution violations include 1st amendment (Rümeysa Öztürk), ICE memo allowing officers to enter homes without a judicial warrant (violation of 4th), denying due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), etc.
Doesn't matter. You can't suspend constitutional protections when they are inconvenient. And it isn't just violations of the constitution, it is also destroying our relationships with European allies, destroying the planet by ignoring climate change, destroying the environment, destroying our health, destroying American competitiveness by defunding research, destroying consumer protections, etc. And what you were asking, did you ask how bad it is, objectively?
Not sure constitution works like that, that a suspicious person can simply run and you can't check ID.
The opinion to allow visa holders as the Turkish person to exercise political activism is funny, too. Don't you think it's the citizens who the country should look after?
Europe is confused, but is finally coming around to understanding that they need to be able to protect themselves. Let's hope we make it on time :).
You can't really turn around climate without China and India. You may try to cripple yourself to attempt it though, but you'll lose even harder then.
I can also tell you that I've seen public funding on various science projects in EU. While it's convenient for the scientists to live off of these projects, then rarely if ever does much or any value come out of it. No companies nor products. Most of the "digital product" is provided to us by US companies, we don't come even close to having anything like it. EU leaders also somehow think that economic development is a matter of their "decision", but as career public servants they have little to no private experience, and just run public funds in "social circuits" that don't produce much.
The right for the Turkish person to engage in free speech either exists or not. If VISA holders don't have free speech then it must be advertised very clearly so people can avoid taking on a US Visa.
That's your interpretation of the constitution. There are other/more laws and circumstances that nuance the situation (you'll find these if you look into that case).
It's similar to the protesters interfering with law enforcement doing their work: you can't protest anywhere at any time. If you take this strict view of the constitution, you could do many currently illegal things, e.g get out of prison by simply hugging a prison guard and following him out, saying that you are protesting in this particular way; say that you are protesting 24/7 and whistle or make other noises throughout the night, which otherwise would be violate noise ordinance. And so on and so on.
You are commenting to the wrong post. The Turkish person wasn't in any rally, she didn't leak any state secrets, she simply wrote an essay criticizing Israel. Either visa holders have a right to free speech in which case this is illegal,or they don't have a right to free speech in which case it must be advertised far and wide so people can avoid visiting the USA.
No, the video gives nuances into how law and constitution works. I.e, regarding whether visa holders have the right to free speech or not, she was deemed not to. If you look into that case, you'll find the specific reasons.
The people you don't like are always guilty, right? Two people are accidentally killed, somewhat due to their own actions, but do you this can mean nothing else than "oppression".
They were not "accidentally killed". They were shot. Someone decided it was a good idea and pulled the trigger. You don’t end up lodging 10 bullets into someone’s back accidentally.
The current version appears to be that the victims gun went off (in the hands of the police officer), by which the rest of them thought that it was the victim who was shooting, so they shot back.
It's the opposition to the current presidency who is trying to spin it their own way. They want it to get out of hand, that there are masses on the streets, whistling to police doing their work, to create more of such situations, so they could blame the government even more.
reply