NationStates

Novus America wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So shaking down random people on inland busses for their papers is not problematic?

Still not all of ICE. Again you realize ICE does more than immigration right?

And no, asking people on public transportation to have documentation is reasonable and common.

Even outside of the 100 mile zone?

Novus America wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So shaking down random people on inland busses for their papers is not problematic?

Still not all of ICE. Again you realize ICE does more than immigration right?

And no, asking people on public transportation to have documentation is reasonable and common.

Usually the ones who don't understand what ICE actually does are the first to demand it be abolished.

Vassenor wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Still not all of ICE. Again you realize ICE does more than immigration right?

And no, asking people on public transportation to have documentation is reasonable and common.

Even outside of the 100 mile zone?

Yes. ICE operates on US soil. I'm fairly certain territory that is 100 miles from the US border is still part of the US.

Vassenor wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Still not all of ICE. Again you realize ICE does more than immigration right?

And no, asking people on public transportation to have documentation is reasonable and common.

Even outside of the 100 mile zone?

Yes.
The train I take to work everyday is well outside that. Guess what? It requires I have identification to board and must be able to present it when asked. We do it for trains and airplanes too. Everywhere.

I get asked to show identification all the time.

Requiring IDs on public transportation is common, and not wrong.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:Yeah no, I'm not exactly a person that wishes for a complete opening of the borders and removal of ICE completely, but to say ICE has done nothing wrong is incredibly naive and disingenuous and saying they should start massacres of unarmed people in droves is absurd and revolting.

I am sorry, are you forgetting that they are invading across the border in droves? That make order unachievable? If 100 people are aching up through the border without stopping, threatening the ICE agents, then the Ice agents have permission to fire. With deadly force. I am not ok with the rape in the detention faculties but again if we didn't allow them in in the first place it wouldn't be a problem

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where incredibly desperate and unarmed men, women, and children are considered armed invaders that are actively using violence against the oh so brave ICE officers and therefore this somehow warrants the use of live rounds against unarmed targets.


Forgive me if I dont think you are in any way actually"not okay" with the tapes occurring (nevermind the fact it isnt the only wrongdoing to have occured) when you have advocating putting bullets in women and children's skulls not a few lines before your pseudoconcern.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Still not all of ICE. Again you realize ICE does more than immigration right?

And no, asking people on public transportation to have documentation is reasonable and common.

Usually the ones who don't understand what ICE actually does are the first to demand it be abolished.

Well said, and as a cadet in the USNSCC I have personally been down to the border to meet Border Patrol Agents and ICE Agents. They are quite intelligent people.

Highever wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:I am sorry, are you forgetting that they are invading across the border in droves? That make order unachievable? If 100 people are aching up through the border without stopping, threatening the ICE agents, then the Ice agents have permission to fire. With deadly force. I am not ok with the rape in the detention faculties but again if we didn't allow them in in the first place it wouldn't be a problem

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where incredibly desperate and unarmed men, women, and children are considered armed invaders that are actively using violence against the oh so brave ICE officers and therefore this somehow warrants the use of live rounds against unarmed targets.


Forgive me if I dont think you are in any way actually"not okay" with the tapes occurring (nevermind the fact it isnt the only wrongdoing to have occured) when you have advocating putting bullets in women and children's skulls not a few lines before your pseudoconcern.

Ok, if a child or a women come up unarmed they should not be shot with live rounds. Men are a different story. If a group of men are throwing rocks or running up the entrance you are cleared to fire at will

Novus America wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes, I know. But the President clearly conflates them in his mind. Remember when he was getting mad at a judge ruling on a Trump U case, and explained that the judge would naturally be biased against him, because he's building a wall and the judge has Mexican heritage. Trump clearly thinks of building his wall as something that makes him an enemy of Mexicans. That's how he thinks about his immigration policies. Anti-Mexican.


I know. And people suffered abuse in those detention facilities as well. But Trump's policies have all these facilities packed to the rafters and new ones being built and private prisons being hired to accommodate all the people he's locking up.


The policies that Trump enacted didn't exist before Trump, obviously.

Trump is just one part of the government.

Yeah, the head of the executive branch. He tells the Department of Homeland Security what to do, and DHS tells ICE, and ICE does it.

And a very large number of illegal immigrants do come from Mexico.

Yup.

But again we are talking laws organizations and policies that started way before Trump.
Trump has not drastically changed our policies on this, cannot make laws and does not hire most of the people in the organizations enforcing them.
Detention of illegal immigrants is not a Trump policy.
Therefore your argument is silly.

The current state of affairs is Trump policy. Saying that doesn't mean that I think he invented the concept of detaining illegal immigrants. But the way it's being done now is on him.

Also Trump has not that drastically increased immigration detention numbers, and numbers of illegal crossings are at an 11 year high.

So no, this is not just Orange Man bad.

He's the one in charge. The buck, as they say, stops with him.

---

Novus America wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Even outside of the 100 mile zone?

Yes.
The train I take to work everyday is well outside that. Guess what? It requires I have identification to board and must be able to present it when asked. When do it for trains and airplanes too. Everywhere.

Requiring IDs on public transportation is common, and not wrong.

Man, you can't imagine how fucked up that shit sounds. Do you know how many times I've been asked to show ID in the streets or on a bus? Once. When I was being detained by the police, entirely justly, for some very suspicious behaviour.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:I'm sorry I must have missed the part where incredibly desperate and unarmed men, women, and children are considered armed invaders that are actively using violence against the oh so brave ICE officers and therefore this somehow warrants the use of live rounds against unarmed targets.


Forgive me if I dont think you are in any way actually"not okay" with the tapes occurring (nevermind the fact it isnt the only wrongdoing to have occured) when you have advocating putting bullets in women and children's skulls not a few lines before your pseudoconcern.

Ok, if a child or a women come up unarmed they should not be shot with live rounds. Men are a different story. If a group of men are throwing rocks or running up the entrance you are cleared to fire at will

Or not. There is a standard RoE already in place for such scenarios that involves rubber bullets and CS gas that is more than enough. Again, shooting people with live rounds is entirely unnecessary.

Highever wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Ok, if a child or a women come up unarmed they should not be shot with live rounds. Men are a different story. If a group of men are throwing rocks or running up the entrance you are cleared to fire at will

Or not. There is a standard RoE already in place for such scenarios that involves rubber bullets and CS gas that is more than enough. Again, shooting people with live rounds is entirely unnecessary.

If you don't have rubber bullets? Or tear gas? Then what? Allow yourself to be hit with rocks? Let them through?

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:Or not. There is a standard RoE already in place for such scenarios that involves rubber bullets and CS gas that is more than enough. Again, shooting people with live rounds is entirely unnecessary.

If you don't have rubber bullets? Or tear gas? Then what? Allow yourself to be hit with rocks? Let them through?

Well, cops are expected to let themselves get stabbed rather than shoot someone so I suppose this is the next logical step.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:Or not. There is a standard RoE already in place for such scenarios that involves rubber bullets and CS gas that is more than enough. Again, shooting people with live rounds is entirely unnecessary.

If you don't have rubber bullets? Or tear gas? Then what? Allow yourself to be hit with rocks? Let them through?

We should probably ensure that border control agencies are adequately equipped with such measures? Incompetency or neglect on the governments part to ensure its agencies are properly equipped is not an excuse to gun down unarmed people.

Highever wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:If you don't have rubber bullets? Or tear gas? Then what? Allow yourself to be hit with rocks? Let them through?

We should probably ensure that border control agencies are adequately equipped with such measures? Incompetency or neglect on the governments part to ensure its agencies are properly equipped is not an excuse to gun down unarmed people.

Ok so we agree on better arming border patrol agents?

Ifreann wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Trump is just one part of the government.

Yeah, the head of the executive branch. He tells the Department of Homeland Security what to do, and DHS tells ICE, and ICE does it.

And a very large number of illegal immigrants do come from Mexico.

Yup.

But again we are talking laws organizations and policies that started way before Trump.
Trump has not drastically changed our policies on this, cannot make laws and does not hire most of the people in the organizations enforcing them.
Detention of illegal immigrants is not a Trump policy.
Therefore your argument is silly.

The current state of affairs is Trump policy. Saying that doesn't mean that I think he invented the concept of detaining illegal immigrants. But the way it's being done now is on him.

Also Trump has not that drastically increased immigration detention numbers, and numbers of illegal crossings are at an 11 year high.

So no, this is not just Orange Man bad.

He's the one in charge. The buck, as they say, stops with him.

---

Novus America wrote:
Yes.
The train I take to work everyday is well outside that. Guess what? It requires I have identification to board and must be able to present it when asked. When do it for trains and airplanes too. Everywhere.

Requiring IDs on public transportation is common, and not wrong.

Man, you can't imagine how fucked up that shit sounds. Do you know how many times I've been asked to show ID in the streets or on a bus? Once. When I was being detained by the police, entirely justly, for some very suspicious behaviour.

Yes Trump is ultimately responsible. But he did not create the policies and laws, and did not change them that much.
I guess the entire National Guard now also exists purely to attack Mexicans according to you?

You cannot say Trump created the purpose for a policy that began long before he was in office.
Being responsible for implementing a policy and creating the reason for it are not necessarily the same. The way it is being done now was not started by him, so he did not create the purpose.

Plus if it exists to ethnically cleanse Mexicans it is clearly not doing a very good job at it.

Trump said something bad about Mexicans =/= all government policies exist for that purpose.

I get asked to show my ID all the time.
Requiring ID on public transportation and public roads is fine.
To use them you have to follow certain legal requirements.
You also have a reduced expectation of privacy when doing so.

And I guess you never flew on a plane then.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:We should probably ensure that border control agencies are adequately equipped with such measures? Incompetency or neglect on the governments part to ensure its agencies are properly equipped is not an excuse to gun down unarmed people.

Ok so we agree on better arming border patrol agents?

Better armed in the sense of providing them with LTL equipment that is suited to containing incidents with unarmed groups of people? Yes, I don't see why not. Better armed in the sense of giving them arsenals of lethal weaponry when such things are entirely unnecessary 99.9% of the time? No.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:We should probably ensure that border control agencies are adequately equipped with such measures? Incompetency or neglect on the governments part to ensure its agencies are properly equipped is not an excuse to gun down unarmed people.

Ok so we agree on better arming border patrol agents?

Better equipped is a better term, with a full spectrum of enforcement tools, but lethal force should be a last resort. Hover ICE and CBP are different agencies.

Highever wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Ok so we agree on better arming border patrol agents?

Better armed in the sense of providing them with LTL equipment that is suited to containing incidents with unarmed groups of people? Yes, I don't see why not. Better armed in the sense of giving them arsenals of lethal weaponry when such things are entirely unnecessary 99.9% of the time? No.

Ok so we agree then.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Liriena wrote:"This government agency is violating the human rights of so many people every year that them wrongfully violating the human rights of 1500 American citizens is not significant" is some fine suicide by words.

Oh no, a government agency is actually doing It's job for once. The horror! We're under no obligation to take any immigrants period.

Actually, you are obligated if they are elligible for asylum.

Liriena wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:Oh no, a government agency is actually doing It's job for once. The horror! We're under no obligation to take any immigrants period.

Actually, you are obligated if they are elligible for asylum.

Not until they step foot on American soil.

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So we're agreed that ICE needs to be torn down and replaced with an organisation not staffed with assholes?

No. ICE has done nothing wrong. What needs to be fixed is how immigrants are admitted to the United States. Meaning, if you do not meet the requirements you are forcibly put back in mexico. Anyone who does not comply is killed on sight

You've been warned twice now, and you lost your previous nation for similar behavior. That earns you a *** 7 day ban for trolling. *** You are welcome to express your opinion here but that must be done in a civil manner. "Anyone who does not comply is killed on sight" is not the civil expression of an opinion in opposition to undocumented immigrants.

And remember, bans apply to you, the player. If you use a puppet to post, you will lose that nation and this one.

Novus America wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yeah, the head of the executive branch. He tells the Department of Homeland Security what to do, and DHS tells ICE, and ICE does it.

Yup.


The current state of affairs is Trump policy. Saying that doesn't mean that I think he invented the concept of detaining illegal immigrants. But the way it's being done now is on him.


He's the one in charge. The buck, as they say, stops with him.

---

Man, you can't imagine how fucked up that shit sounds. Do you know how many times I've been asked to show ID in the streets or on a bus? Once. When I was being detained by the police, entirely justly, for some very suspicious behaviour.

Yes Trump is ultimately responsible. But he did not create the policies and laws, and did not change them that much.

See, now you're just agreeing with me that Trump is responsible but quibbling about how much he changed the policies, as if that matters.

Plus if it exists to ethnically cleanse Mexicans it is clearly not doing a very good job at it.

I don't think that that's the current objective. But maybe have a think about how confident you are that if Trump got his way in the morning, he got his wall and his Muslim ban and anything else he could imagine, that he would stop there, and he'd be fine with all the legal immigrants currently in the US.

Trump said something bad about Mexicans =/= all government policies exist for that purpose.

But the fact that Trump himself clearly thinks of his policies as anti-Mexican is going to inform how the various agencies that he is in charge of as President conduct themselves.

I get asked to show my ID all the time.
Requiring ID on public transportation and public roads is fine.
To use them you have to follow certain legal requirements.

That is some totalitarian dystopia sounding shit. I wasn't even asked for ID when I voted on Friday.

Novus America wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yeah, the head of the executive branch. He tells the Department of Homeland Security what to do, and DHS tells ICE, and ICE does it.

Yup.


The current state of affairs is Trump policy. Saying that doesn't mean that I think he invented the concept of detaining illegal immigrants. But the way it's being done now is on him.


He's the one in charge. The buck, as they say, stops with him.

---

Man, you can't imagine how fucked up that shit sounds. Do you know how many times I've been asked to show ID in the streets or on a bus? Once. When I was being detained by the police, entirely justly, for some very suspicious behaviour.

Yes Trump is ultimately responsible. But he did not create the policies and laws, and did not change them that much.
I guess the entire National Guard now also exists purely to attack Mexicans according to you?

You cannot say Trump created the purpose for a policy that began long before he was in office.
Being responsible for implementing a policy and creating the reason for it are not necessarily the same. The way it is being done now was not started by him, so he did not create the purpose.

Plus if it exists to ethnically cleanse Mexicans it is clearly not doing a very good job at it.

Trump said something bad about Mexicans =/= all government policies exist for that purpose.

I get asked to show my ID all the time.
Requiring ID on public transportation and public roads is fine.
To use them you have to follow certain legal requirements.
You also have a reduced expectation of privacy when doing so.

And I guess you never flew on a plane then.

So clearly that makes it fine for ERO officers to board random busses and go full on "Papers, please".

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:

Highever wrote:Better armed in the sense of providing them with LTL equipment that is suited to containing incidents with unarmed groups of people? Yes, I don't see why not. Better armed in the sense of giving them arsenals of lethal weaponry when such things are entirely unnecessary 99.9% of the time? No.

Ok so we agree then.

Not on the putting people on a line and slaughtering them part, nor the naive sentiment that ICE and other border agencies have done absolutely nothing wrong, no.

Ifreann wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Yes Trump is ultimately responsible. But he did not create the policies and laws, and did not change them that much.

See, now you're just agreeing with me that Trump is responsible but quibbling about how much he changed the policies, as if that matters.

Plus if it exists to ethnically cleanse Mexicans it is clearly not doing a very good job at it.

I don't think that that's the current objective. But maybe have a think about how confident you are that if Trump got his way in the morning, he got his wall and his Muslim ban and anything else he could imagine, that he would stop there, and he'd be fine with all the legal immigrants currently in the US.

Trump said something bad about Mexicans =/= all government policies exist for that purpose.

But the fact that Trump himself clearly thinks of his policies as anti-Mexican is going to inform how the various agencies that he is in charge of as President conduct themselves.

I get asked to show my ID all the time.
Requiring ID on public transportation and public roads is fine.
To use them you have to follow certain legal requirements.

That is some totalitarian dystopia sounding shit. I wasn't even asked for ID when I voted on Friday.

See you are still conflating being responsible for a policy and creating the purpose.
He does think he upsets some Mexicans.
That does not mean policies that started before him exist for that purpose.

You claim is still garbage. It still comes down to “Trump said something bad about Mexicans ergo government policies exist just to oppress Mexicans”.
Trump has other motivations too you know, and again his motives and the motives of laws from over 100 years ago are not the same.

And no, showing ID to use public transportation is not dystopian.
I guess you never flew a plane either then.

Vassenor wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Yes Trump is ultimately responsible. But he did not create the policies and laws, and did not change them that much.
I guess the entire National Guard now also exists purely to attack Mexicans according to you?

You cannot say Trump created the purpose for a policy that began long before he was in office.
Being responsible for implementing a policy and creating the reason for it are not necessarily the same. The way it is being done now was not started by him, so he did not create the purpose.

Plus if it exists to ethnically cleanse Mexicans it is clearly not doing a very good job at it.

Trump said something bad about Mexicans =/= all government policies exist for that purpose.

I get asked to show my ID all the time.
Requiring ID on public transportation and public roads is fine.
To use them you have to follow certain legal requirements.
You also have a reduced expectation of privacy when doing so.

And I guess you never flew on a plane then.

So clearly that makes it fine for ERO officers to board random busses and go full on "Papers, please".

ERO is not all of ICE. It is not even the biggest component.
And yes, you do not own the bus, nor the road, and have a reduced expectation of privacy.