ICE putting LGBT and disabled immigrants in solitary...

[Wallenburg]

Less for the lols and more because those people are of minority groups. Don't pretend that going to torture as a first resort is driven merely by having to deal with "so many" immigrants.

I'm not going to read 400 posts of NSG on the off chance that one of them contains a substantive response to my specific problems with ICE.

1) HSI literally wants to dismantle ICE into two separate agencies.
2) I have no sympathy for HSI. Their responsibility for the horrors inflicted on imprisoned immigrants, residents, and US citizens are not lessened just because their agents do not personally carry out those horrors. They feed ERO prisoners, and they are responsible for the imprisonment of people who should not be imprisoned.

It is not, as the source I posted stated they are overwhelmed.
Sure they are not always providing adequate supervision to the centers (which they usually do NOT own nor operate) but that is not them being evil because they hate minorities or whatever.

Buddy, people don't wind up in solitary just because prisons have so many immigrants to handle. People don't end up dying from dehydration just because there are so many fucking immigrants that they can't even remember to give them water.

Well sure reorganizing ICE is a possibility but I would place both components ind CBP but that is different than saying “abolish ICE” which is just a half baked meme.

I didn't say "abolish ICE", 10/10 for effort though.

And why would HSI feed ERO detainees?
Sure HSI arrests people for things like arms trafficking and human trafficking, but those people need to be arrested.

You can arrest people for trafficking without sending them to ICE prisons. Trafficking is illegal regardless of residency or citizenship status, US citizens get prosecuted and convicted for trafficking as well.

[Nova Cyberia]

X

It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean.

Lol no it isn't, fam. There is no standard of "illegal until SCOTUS rules overthwise". You literally pulled that straight out of your rectum.

It's immoral because the doctrine of "innocent before proven guilty" allows for the maximum amount of freedom tempered by the minimum amount of laws, and it's part of the bedrock of American society. One of those "liberty and justice for all" things, you know. Little stuff.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to civil matters like immigration. Try again.

It's impractical because it wouldn't catch any illegal immigrants and just end up costing money to hassle citizens going about their business. (if you don't think people would hear and stop riding the bus forever within a week then l m a o)

I don't get it. Do illegals not use buses?

Finally, it's a terrible idea in general, because it's better to give the Devil the benefit of law than to cut them all down and leave nowhere to hide when He comes knockin'.

Do you actually want to live in America, or some weird parody of it where only the "right" people are allowed in? Swear to God, kids these days.

I'd rather live in one where immigration law is actually enforced and not treated as the equivalent of the Nuremburg Laws.

[Twilight Imperium]

Also, for the record, I'm in favor of border control. Not a fan of the bullshit ICE is getting up to these days, but that doesn't mean border control is a bad idea.

I draw the line at hassling people already inside the country though. If they make trouble, "carry diseases that have not been checked for", "overwhelm public services and infrastructure", and/or do violent crimes, we can do something about it then. Folks like that tend to stand out.

Also, it's worth noticing that we Americans are pretty good at all of those on our own, cutting off foreign imports won't change that much.

[Novus America]

X

It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean.

It's immoral because the doctrine of "innocent before proven guilty" allows for the maximum amount of freedom tempered by the minimum amount of laws, and it's part of the bedrock of American society. One of those "liberty and justice for all" things, you know. Little stuff.

It's impractical because it wouldn't catch any illegal immigrants and just end up costing money to hassle citizens going about their business. (if you don't think people would hear and stop riding the bus forever within a week then l m a o)

Finally, it's a terrible idea in general, because it's better to give the Devil the benefit of law than to cut them all down and leave nowhere to hide when He comes knockin'.

Do you actually want to live in America, or some weird parody of it where only the "right" people are allowed in? Swear to God, kids these days.

The courts have not found it illegal, the law allows it and you have a reduced expectation of privacy on public transport. Where you are already subject to other checks.

And yes, in America we do have legal structures that determine what immigrants we select for entry. This is not a weird parody because it is what we do and always have done.

[Druulis]

OK now you're really being irrational. Someone pointing out that you're flying off the handle does not mean they are trying to discredit you.

Flying off the handle. Yup. You are definitely posting in good faith.

Don't bother responding to me any more as you'll be on the foe list. You simply aren't worth the time.

Hmmmm that sounds suspiciously like a personal attack.

[Wallenburg]

Thanks for revealing that, to you, "being in this country illegally" and looking too brown are one and the same.

Okay, I'll bite. How did I do that?

Because police can only require someone to present their information if there is reason to believe they have broken the law. Sitting on a bus doesn't indicate you have broken the law. The reality of the matter is that, absent cause, police will profile people in order to get those arrests in. That means assuming brown people are criminals.

It isn't a matter of national security. Immigrants are not an invasion force, sorry to disappoint.

Yes, it is. The government needs to know who's coming in here to insire that they aren't a criminal, terrorist, or carrying diseases.

Actually, never mind, I'm not going to entertain arguments made in bad faith.

[Neutraligon]

It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean.

It's immoral because the doctrine of "innocent before proven guilty" allows for the maximum amount of freedom tempered by the minimum amount of laws, and it's part of the bedrock of American society. One of those "liberty and justice for all" things, you know. Little stuff.

It's impractical because it wouldn't catch any illegal immigrants and just end up costing money to hassle citizens going about their business. (if you don't think people would hear and stop riding the bus forever within a week then l m a o)

Finally, it's a terrible idea in general, because it's better to give the Devil the benefit of law than to cut them all down and leave nowhere to hide when He comes knockin'.

Do you actually want to live in America, or some weird parody of it where only the "right" people are allowed in? Swear to God, kids these days.

The courses have no found it illegal, the law allows it and you have a reduced expectation of privacy on public transport. Where you are already subject to other checks.

And yes, in America we do have legal structures that determine what immigrants we select for entry. This is not a weird parody because it is what we do and always have done.

We also have a constitutional about IDs.

[Loben The 2nd]

Flying off the handle. Yup. You are definitely posting in good faith.

Don't bother responding to me any more as you'll be on the foe list. You simply aren't worth the time.

Hmmmm that sounds suspiciously like a personal attack.

Report it.

[Nova Cyberia]

Okay, I'll bite. How did I do that?

Because police can only require someone to present their information if there is reason to believe they have broken the law. Sitting on a bus doesn't indicate you have broken the law. The reality of the matter is that, absent cause, police will profile people in order to get those arrests in. That means assuming brown people are criminals.

Then, again, I guess sobriety checkpoints are illegal.

Driving is a privilege, and so is immigration.

Also, I just love the weak appeal to racism. Really shows how flimsy your argument is.

Yes, it is. The government needs to know who's coming in here to insire that they aren't a criminal, terrorist, or carrying diseases.

Actually, never mind, I'm not going to entertain arguments made in bad faith.

>tfw saying we need to protect our borders is arguing in bad faith
Hoo boy.

[Novus America]

It is not, as the source I posted stated they are overwhelmed.
Sure they are not always providing adequate supervision to the centers (which they usually do NOT own nor operate) but that is not them being evil because they hate minorities or whatever.

Buddy, people don't wind up in solitary just because prisons have so many immigrants to handle. People don't end up dying from dehydration just because there are so many fucking immigrants that they can't even remember to give them water.

Well sure reorganizing ICE is a possibility but I would place both components ind CBP but that is different than saying “abolish ICE” which is just a half baked meme.

I didn't say "abolish ICE", 10/10 for effort though.

And why would HSI feed ERO detainees?
Sure HSI arrests people for things like arms trafficking and human trafficking, but those people need to be arrested.

You can arrest people for trafficking without sending them to ICE prisons. Trafficking is illegal regardless of residency or citizenship status, US citizens get prosecuted and convicted for trafficking as well.

Actually they very well might not get enough attention if the system is overwhelmed.
ICE does not even usually own or operate the detention facilities.
Failing to provide adequate supervision of facilities you do not even own or operate can come from being overwhelmed.

Yes HSI arrests American citizens too if they commit crimes like human trafficking.
This is not a bad thing. This is good.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean.

Lol no it isn't, fam. There is no standard of "illegal until SCOTUS rules overthwise". You literally pulled that straight out of your rectum.

It's called "the fourth amendment", and you may have heard of it. You know, the "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part? Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with.

Also, of course immigrants use buses. They won't for very long after they start getting searched for illegals, so after the first week or so it'll be a massive waste of time to do so.

I'd wish you luck with your crusade to demolish the Constitution in favor of catching those nasty illegals, but honestly, I kinda hope it fails dramatically. Your ideals are gross and their implications disturbing. I hope someday you come to realize that, and that I have some part in it, but for now, I believe we're at an impasse.

[Novus America]

The courses have no found it illegal, the law allows it and you have a reduced expectation of privacy on public transport. Where you are already subject to other checks.

And yes, in America we do have legal structures that determine what immigrants we select for entry. This is not a weird parody because it is what we do and always have done.

We also have a constitutional about IDs.

I am not sure what that means. We do have a Constitutional provision regarding search and seizure yes.

[Novus America]

Lol no it isn't, fam. There is no standard of "illegal until SCOTUS rules overthwise". You literally pulled that straight out of your rectum.

It's called "the fourth amendment", and you may have heard of it. You know, the "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part? Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with.

Also, of course immigrants use buses. They won't for very long after they start getting searched for illegals, so after the first week or so it'll be a massive waste of time to do so.

I'd wish you luck with your crusade to demolish the Constitution in favor of catching those nasty illegals, but honestly, I kinda hope it fails dramatically. Your ideals are gross and their implications disturbing. I hope someday you come to realize that, and that I have some part in it, but for now, I believe we're at an impasse.

Actually it is the opposite.
US federal courts cannot give advisory opinions.
They determine the legality after the law has had effect, not before it is written.

Case or Controversy Clause

[Nova Cyberia]

Lol no it isn't, fam. There is no standard of "illegal until SCOTUS rules overthwise". You literally pulled that straight out of your rectum.

It's called "the fourth amendment", and you may have heard of it. You know, the "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part? Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with.

You keep carting out the Fourth Amendment, yet fail to realize that there are cases where it can be legally limited like, ya know, sobriety checkpoints.

Also, of course immigrants use buses. They won't for very long after they start getting searched for illegals, so after the first week or so it'll be a massive waste of time to do so.

Illegals can't get licenses, so I'd imagine many of them have to use public transport to get around.

I'd wish you luck with your crusade to demolish the Constitution in favor of catching those nasty illegals, but honestly, I kinda hope it fails dramatically. Your ideals are gross and their implications disturbing. I hope someday you come to realize that, and that I have some part in it, but for now, I believe we're at an impasse.

Your weak attempt at snark is noted.

[Elenir]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

[Nova Cyberia]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

They get extra oppression points.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's called "the fourth amendment", and you may have heard of it. You know, the "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part? Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with.
.

Actually it is the opposite.
US courts cannot give advisory opinions.
They determine the legality after the law has had effect, not before.

That's actually what I was trying to get at - "Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with." Who decides what's illegal? Congress. Therefore, unless someone's doing something Congress (or various relevant state agencies) has outlawed, what was it again? Oh right. They have "the right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

That's what I meant by "ruled otherwise" in that quote NC missed the point of - "It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean."

Unless you have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", you're not allowed to search and/or seize them. The amendment really isn't that long, guys.

[Elenir]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

They get extra oppression points.

Ah, makes sense.
I find it kinda ironic that it mentions LGBT people, and the article constantly talks about the mentally diseased.

[Ifreann]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

It matters if the government is targetting already vulnerable people for torture, yes.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

They get extra oppression points.

Also this but unironically - doing it to "regular" people is bad enough, if you do it to someone who's already disadvantaged you look like an extra-sized asshole. Doesn't matter under the law, but it does whip up outrage.

[Loben The 2nd]

I'm a bit confused. Is the fact that they are lgbt or disabled that important?

It matters if the government is targetting already vulnerable people for torture, yes.

Are we pulling their teeth out or.....

[Nova Cyberia]

Actually it is the opposite.
US courts cannot give advisory opinions.
They determine the legality after the law has had effect, not before.

That's actually what I was trying to get at - "Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with." Who decides what's illegal? Congress. Therefore, unless someone's doing something Congress (or various relevant state agencies) has outlawed, what was it again? Oh right. They have "the right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

That's what I meant by "ruled otherwise" in that quote NC missed the point of - "It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean."

Unless you have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", you're not allowed to search and/or seize them. The amendment really isn't that long, guys.

Holy fuck, you really don't understand the Constiution. Determining what laws are Constitutional or not is the job of the courts, not Congress.

[Elenir]

They get extra oppression points.

Also this but unironically - doing it to "regular" people is bad enough, if you do it to someone who's already disadvantaged you look like an extra-sized asshole. Doesn't matter under the law, but it does whip up outrage.

I mean, but there's no need to segregate both LGBT and disabled immigrants, they fit under the people label just as much as someone who's straight or with a working body.

[Wallenburg]

It matters if the government is targetting already vulnerable people for torture, yes.

Are we pulling their teeth out or.....

Solitary is torture. This is widely accepted as scientific fact.

[Twilight Imperium]

Also this but unironically - doing it to "regular" people is bad enough, if you do it to someone who's already disadvantaged you look like an extra-sized asshole. Doesn't matter under the law, but it does whip up outrage.

I mean, but there's no need to segregate both LGBT and disabled immigrants, they fit under the people label just as much as someone who's straight or with a working body.

See the "whip up outrage" part. If they're doing it to everyone, they're doing it to LGBT and disabled immigrants too. Probably also children. Isn't that awful?

Holy fuck, you really don't understand the Constiution. Determining what laws are Constitutional and not is the job of the courts, not Congress.

whooooosh