ICE putting LGBT and disabled immigrants in solitary...

[Druulis]

Let me guess: you're white.

I didn't respond to TI when he tongue-in-cheek suggested it. Besides being irrelevant, it's impossible to prove so the question will likely lead nowhere. You are ignoring the topic of conversation and instead trying to discredit me personally.

You really need to calm down. I only wanted to know why you are so uncritical of the police.

[Luna Amore]

I didn't respond to TI when he tongue-in-cheek suggested it. Besides being irrelevant, it's impossible to prove so the question will likely lead nowhere. You are ignoring the topic of conversation and instead trying to discredit me personally.

I can handle this one, let me check my reference card:

1. I'm white.

Sneering dismissal, "of course you like the cops something something white privilege"

2. I'm black.

Accusations of lying, you're "obviously" white.

3. I'm Asian.

"You live in a place where that's the same thing as White"

4. I'm Hispanic.

"well you're not black soooooo"

5. I'm native American.

"see 4, plus or minus implication you're drunk"

6. I'm an Aboriginal Australian.

See 2.

7. I'm a lizard person.

HOW ARE YOU TYPING

Good on you for having the reference card. I threw a few deliberate curve balls in there, but damn it, you came prepared!

Seriously, don't play the race card, it's obvious and kinda boring.

My thoughts exactly.

[Twilight Imperium]

Then I guess we should make sure it's properly conducted.

Also, people on buses have even less of an expectation of privacy. They don't own the bus and are camera recorded too.

I actually ran the numbers - you ignored 92% of my post about "no this is illegal as hell" to focus on the part that might actually be possible.

[Twilight Imperium]

I didn't respond to TI when he tongue-in-cheek suggested it. Besides being irrelevant, it's impossible to prove so the question will likely lead nowhere. You are ignoring the topic of conversation and instead trying to discredit me personally.

You really need to calm down. I only wanted to know why you are so uncritical of the police.

Please sealion elsewhere, we all know what you meant.

[Druulis]

I can handle this one, let me check my reference card:

1. I'm white.

Sneering dismissal, "of course you like the cops something something white privilege"

2. I'm black.

Accusations of lying, you're "obviously" white.

3. I'm Asian.

"You live in a place where that's the same thing as White"

4. I'm Hispanic.

"well you're not black soooooo"

5. I'm native American.

"see 4, plus or minus implication you're drunk"

6. I'm an Aboriginal Australian.

See 2.

7. I'm a lizard person.

HOW ARE YOU TYPING

Good on you for having the reference card. I threw a few deliberate curve balls in there, but damn it, you came prepared!

Seriously, don't play the race card, it's obvious and kinda boring.

My thoughts exactly.

Not my fault you can't handle criticism.

[Nova Cyberia]

Then I guess we should make sure it's properly conducted.

Also, people on buses have even less of an expectation of privacy. They don't own the bus and are camera recorded too.

I actually ran the numbers - you ignored 92% of my post about "no this is illegal as hell" to focus on the part that might actually be possible.

No, I didn't. First of all, you didn't explain how it's illegal. You were just talking about sobriety checkpoints. You said it needed to be conducted within constitutional guidelines. Also, you said cars can be expected to get pulled. People on buses have even less expectations of privacy than motorists.

So I did address your post. You continue to assert citizenship checks are illegal without actually explaining how.

[Druulis]

You really need to calm down. I only wanted to know why you are so uncritical of the police.

Please sealion elsewhere, we all know what you meant.

Asking why someone is pro authoritarianism is 'sealioning'? Also arn't you supposed to be on my side?

[Twilight Imperium]

Not my fault you can't handle criticism.

lmao get the fuck out of here with that weak bullshit

Where's Novus America? He at least had some fun ideas.

[Wallenburg]

This is why ICE needs to be dismantled. It is rotten to its fucking core. It kidnaps and abuses children. It works to deport legal residents and even US citizens that have the wrong kind of last name. It tortures people simply for the pleasure of watching other people, especially LGBT people, the disabled, and the mentally ill, suffer. There is no justification for preserving this institution of violence and bigotry.

Seeking asylum is a crime? Fuck, I learn something new every day.

Any evidence it tortures and arrests people just for the lols?
As the article I posted suggested this is more a matter of ICE ERO being overwhelmed by a dramatic shift in the nature of migration and a sudden increase in immigration numbers. It appears it does not have the resources to always see what happens (these detainees are held by other organizations).

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.

And please review the actual arguments in the thread, not just skim the OP and repost the same thing a bunch of people did that has already been addressed.

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.

Even if you believe in open borders (I addressed why this would be a disaster) ICE does not only deal with enforcing immigration laws.
The majority of ICE does not do immigration enforcement. Even if ERO was “rotten to the core” what about HSI? Do you even know the difference?

It deals with all illegal movement of persons and goods across borders. Including human trafficking and arms trafficking.
Please first review how ICE is organized and structured.

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.

[Luna Amore]

I didn't respond to TI when he tongue-in-cheek suggested it. Besides being irrelevant, it's impossible to prove so the question will likely lead nowhere. You are ignoring the topic of conversation and instead trying to discredit me personally.

You really need to calm down. I only wanted to know why you are so uncritical of the police.

No part of my post suggests I'm not calm. You are once again trying to discredit me personally by suggesting I'm not calm. This is a bad discussion tactic that is unfortunately used a fair amount around here. Or maybe I'm just noticing it more.

If you wanted to ask why that question, you would have asked it. But now since you have, I'm not uncritical of the police. I'm just fully aware that the police are a necessary part of society and can disagree with the parts of the process without disrespecting the people who enact the process. I have been detained and/or questioned when I did nothing wrong. Still treated the responding officer(s) with basic human decency and responded to his/her instructions and questions. They are doing a job that needs to be done. The exceptions do not override the rule.

People respond better to courtesy and level-headed respect than confrontation and disrespect. That's true on both sides of the equation. It ain't rocket surgery.


All that said, this is all very much off the original topic of the thread, so I really think we need to end this here.

[Loben The 2nd]

Please sealion elsewhere, we all know what you meant.

Asking why someone is pro authoritarianism is 'sealioning'? Also arn't you supposed to be on my side?

There’s not wanting to get your ass beat and being pro authoritarian.

Subtle difference, but not difficult to spot.

[Wallenburg]

Okay. shrug



How about like, the entire rest of what we've been talking about?

If sobriety checkpoints are constitutional and legal then citizenship checks on public buses sure as shit are. It's virtually the same principle.

That does not follow at all. Driving under the influence is illegal, and presents an immediate and serious danger to every single person on the road with you, including yourself. Riding a bus while not being a citizen isn't illegal, and does not endanger anyone.

[Twilight Imperium]

No, I didn't. First of all, you didn't explain how it's illegal. You were just talking about sobriety checkpoints. You said it needed to be conducted within constitutional guidelines. Also, you said cars can be expected to get pulled. People on buses have even less expectations of privacy than motorists.

So I did address your post. You continue to assert citizenship checks are illegal without actually explaining how.

You were talking about sobriety checkpoints and trying to wave your hands around to say they're the same thing. I posted opinion, law, and a moral basis for why they're not. Hint: it's because sobriety checkpoints are actually unconstitutional but we're letting it slide to try and keep drunk drivers from killing so many people. Which it says in the Supreme Court ruling.

The fourth amendment prevents search and seizure of your stuff except where there's a compelling interest and a warrant. In your house, that's your house. In your car, that's your car. In public, that's yourself and the shit you're carrying. "You might be an undesirable" is neither compelling interest, nor a warrant.

Stopping random people on the street in case they might be doing something wrong is literally one of the main things the bill of rights is supposed to protect against. The fact that they poked a hole in that to stop drunk driving should be concerning, not a license to just go ahead and walk all over it.

E: Also this.

That does not follow at all. Driving under the influence is illegal, and presents an immediate and serious danger to every single person on the road with you, including yourself. Riding a bus while not being a citizen isn't illegal, and does not endanger anyone.

[Druulis]

.

[Druulis]

You really need to calm down. I only wanted to know why you are so uncritical of the police.

No part of my post suggests I'm not calm. You are once again trying to discredit me personally by suggesting I'm not calm. This is a bad discussion tactic that is unfortunately used a fair amount around here. Or maybe I'm just noticing it more.

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.

If you wanted to ask why that question, you would have asked it. But now since you have, I'm not uncritical of the police.

Can you show me where you've said anything critical of the police?

I'm just fully aware that the police are a necessary part of society and can disagree with the parts of the process without disrespecting the people who enact the process.

Shooting black teenagers is part of the 'process'?

I have been detained and/or questioned when I did nothing wrong. Still treated the responding officer(s) with basic human decency and responded to his/her instructions and questions. They are doing a job that needs to be done. The exceptions do not override the rule.

Just because you want to be a boot licker doesn't mean anyone else who is detained unfairly isn't allowed to complain.

People respond better to courtesy and level-headed respect than confrontation and disrespect. That's true on both sides of the equation. It ain't rocket surgery.

Tell that to Philando Castile.

[Loben The 2nd]

Repeating a dead mans name doesn’t really add anything to your argument.

[Twilight Imperium]

X

none of this is interesting, well thought out, or even on topic, please go away

[Nova Cyberia]

No, I didn't. First of all, you didn't explain how it's illegal. You were just talking about sobriety checkpoints. You said it needed to be conducted within constitutional guidelines. Also, you said cars can be expected to get pulled. People on buses have even less expectations of privacy than motorists.

So I did address your post. You continue to assert citizenship checks are illegal without actually explaining how.

You were talking about sobriety checkpoints and trying to wave your hands around to say they're the same thing. I posted opinion, law, and a moral basis for why they're not. Hint: it's because sobriety checkpoints are actually unconstitutional but we're letting it slide to try and keep drunk drivers from killing so many people. Which it says in the Supreme Court ruling.

No, you haven't. You haven't posted a legal basis for why it's illegal.

You attempted to say it's illegal because of the SCOTUS ruling on sobriety checkpoints. That's bullshit.

The fourth amendment prevents search and seizure of your stuff except where there's a compelling interest and a warrant. In your house, that's your house. In your car, that's your car. In public, that's yourself and the shit you're carrying. "You might be an undesirable" is neither compelling interest, nor a warrant.

I'd say deporting people who are in this country illegally is a compelling reason. It's a matter of national security. We need to know who's coming into the country.

Stopping random people on the street in case they might be doing something wrong is literally one of the main things the bill of rights is supposed to protect against. The fact that they poked a hole in that to stop drunk driving should be concerning, not a license to just go ahead and walk all over it.

>in the street

I thought we were talking about stopping people on buses?

[Luna Amore]

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.

[Wallenburg]

The fourth amendment prevents search and seizure of your stuff except where there's a compelling interest and a warrant. In your house, that's your house. In your car, that's your car. In public, that's yourself and the shit you're carrying. "You might be an undesirable" is neither compelling interest, nor a warrant.

I'd say deporting people who are in this country illegally is a compelling reason.

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

It's a matter of national security. We need to know who's coming into the country.

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

Stopping random people on the street in case they might be doing something wrong is literally one of the main things the bill of rights is supposed to protect against. The fact that they poked a hole in that to stop drunk driving should be concerning, not a license to just go ahead and walk all over it.

>in the street

I thought we were talking about stopping people on buses?

Didn't actually address the argument.

[Novus America]

Any evidence it tortures and arrests people just for the lols?
As the article I posted suggested this is more a matter of ICE ERO being overwhelmed by a dramatic shift in the nature of migration and a sudden increase in immigration numbers. It appears it does not have the resources to always see what happens (these detainees are held by other organizations).

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.

And please review the actual arguments in the thread, not just skim the OP and repost the same thing a bunch of people did that has already been addressed.

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.

Even if you believe in open borders (I addressed why this would be a disaster) ICE does not only deal with enforcing immigration laws.
The majority of ICE does not do immigration enforcement. Even if ERO was “rotten to the core” what about HSI? Do you even know the difference?

It deals with all illegal movement of persons and goods across borders. Including human trafficking and arms trafficking.
Please first review how ICE is organized and structured.

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.

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.

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.

[Ifreann]

Super good feelings from so many people thinking that there's nothing wrong with not having the freedom to go about your business unmolested by the authorities.

---

Would I be free to ignore the question and walk away? If no, then that's how it's like being arrested.

No, being asked for ID is in no way 'being molested by the authorities'.

It rather is, in the sense of being bothered, or interfered with, rather than in the sense of being sexually assaulted.

Why wouldn't you present an ID a uniformed officer?

What does it matter why? If I cannot do so, for whatever reason might cross my mind, then that is like being arrested.

---

Solitary confinement shouldn't even be a thing except for detainees who are too dangerous for general population. At best, solitary protects the prisoner, but at worst, it's outright torture.

When a prisoner needs to be segregated from the other prisoners, either for their safety or the safety of everyone else, then arrangements should be made to make sure they can socialise with someone. Assign a guard to sit outside their cell and chat shit with them, open up their visiting hours, give them a mic for X Box live...

Okay, not that last one, but something.

[Nova Cyberia]

I'd say deporting people who are in this country illegally is a compelling reason.

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?

It's a matter of national security. We need to know who's coming into the country.

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 insure that they aren't a criminal, terrorist, or carrying diseases.

Immigration laws do actually exist for reasons beyond racism, believe it or not.

>in the street

I thought we were talking about stopping people on buses?

Didn't actually address the argument.

The argument was fallacious.

[Twilight Imperium]

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.

[Novus America]

I'd say deporting people who are in this country illegally is a compelling reason.

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

It's a matter of national security. We need to know who's coming into the country.

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

>in the street

I thought we were talking about stopping people on buses?

Didn't actually address the argument.

Actually controlling who comes in is a matter of national security.
National security does not require an invasion, some illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals.
So adequate immigration controls is necessary.
Also for public health and welfare. Some carry diseases that have not been checked for, and massive influxes of uncontrolled immigration overwhelms public services and infrastructure.