As a non-American this is something I don't understand, so maybe someone with more context can explain. Why is this app even needed/desired?
As far as I can see there are two possibilities here: 1) ICE is abusing their power and illegally detaining and deporting people who shouldn't be deported, or 2) ICE is deporting illegal immigrants which don't have permission to be in the country so they shouldn't be in the country. In case of (1) can't they be taken to court? In case of (2) aren't immigration laws there for a reason, and surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law like in so many corrupt countries around the world? Isn't the rule of law a thing in the US?
The methods ICE is using currently to detain people for deportation look a lot like secret police tactics for disappearing folks and resemble kidnapping, when a van full of armed men with face masks jump out and remove you from your vehicle, zip-tie you, and transport you to a secret facility.
There have also been reported situations of ICE officers breaking windows of cars and pulling folks out, when all they had was an administrative warrant.
And that doesn’t include the recently reported and videoed situation of an ICE agent firing at a vehicle that was stopped by ICE agents.
All of these tactics increase fear among the populace, and that fear is what drives apps like these. Whether you’re here legally or not, no one deserves the secret police tactics that fly in the face of the principles of limited government and freedom of movement.
One the one hand, you have maybe-semi-reasonable arguments about law and social problems. On the other, you have extremely violent enforcement, carried out in discriminatory ways, which will also end up affecting the entirely innocent. While producing a huge prison population for private profit.
The war on drugs brought all sorts of search and seizure, including forfeiture (effectively a war on cash allowing the police to steal people's money). The war on terror brought mass surveillance and much more intrusive searches at airports. The war on immigration will bring "papers please" to American citizens, as well as the ability to disappear inconvenient public speakers.
We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not cooperate with the federal government regarding immigration, meaning that anyone in these cities who interacts with the police or justice system (generally speaking, in most cases) will not be reported for being in the country without documentation. This means that the federal government has fewer means of detaining individuals without documentation in a safe manner, even those convicted of serious crimes. We see the result of these policies now.
> The methods ICE is using currently to detain people for deportation look a lot like secret police tactics for disappearing folks
You could argue that this is also a trial run to gauge the American public and governmental tolerance for actual secret police on the streets disappearing people (both depressingly high, it turns out.)
> Whether you’re here legally or not, no one deserves the secret police tactics that fly in the face of the principles of limited government and freedom of movement.
Committing a crime might well result in your movement being curtailed, and addressing crime is definitely within the remit of limited government.
> 1) ICE is abusing their power and illegally detaining and deporting people who shouldn't be deported
ICE has been going after low hanging fruit, ie arresting people when they go to their immigration court dates(aka following the rules).
> (1) can't they be taken to court?
Once arrested, ICE will ship people off to many states away(if you're european, imagine being arrested in the north of France and sent to a camp in southern Spain).
Once you are arrested by ICE, it's very difficult to be found. There is no arrest announcement or ability to call family. Basically you disappear into this system and if you have someone hire a lawyer, the lawyer essentially has to search for you in various prisons.
Sure they can be taken to court, but the arrestee wont see any restitution for the terrible conditions they were illegally forced into. If you do win in court( Kilmar Abrego), they'll send you somewhere even worse out of spite.
ICE has also made a hobby of repeatedly moving people around the country in order to separate them from lawyers who do find them, wasting taxpayer money on flights in the process.
> ICE has been going after low hanging fruit, ie arresting people when they go to their immigration court dates(aka following the rules).
As far as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), if you have no valid status in the US then going to court does not mean that you are following the rules, no? I mean, why would anyone with a valid status have to go to immigration court?
ICE officers have no badges. They wear masks. Sometimes they have no uniforms. They grab people off the streets, and stuff them into white vans. They may send those people to foreign prisons, even if a judge tells them not to. Some of the people they take are natural-born citizens.
Taking them to court works sometimes. But ICE will often attempt to move people out of state quickly, and they won't always say where those people went. And as I mentioned above, the administration has just straight-up ignored multiple court orders.
Courts are a cute legal fiction that only works if the people with guns agree to listen to them.
Tangent but: I am shocked none of these guys have been gunned down yet.
Where I live, which is the suburbs in Ohio and only mildly gun happy by US standards, I’d estimate that if you went house to house busting in doors with masks and no ID you’d make it less than ten houses before you’d get a face full of buck shot.
Some of the border states where they’re doing this like Texas and Arizona I’d say no more than three houses.
even if they don't get sent to a foreign prison, they are sending them to prisons in other states, making it extremely difficult for their families to help them get due process
That would require a sensible immigration regulation.
What we have instead is a regulation that almost prohibits immigration, but which has a whole bunch of grey areas, exceptions to the rule that qualify you for some special status, and courts that are overloaded by a factor of ~100 relative to what they would need to do their job, or overloaded by a factor of ~10 relative to what they would need to do a terrible pro forma job. While waiting for a court date (let's say you walk in and claim asylum) you are granted a special status by administrative custom which says that nobody is coming after you until after your status is adjudicated. Deportation is "deferred", and can be rescinded after the fact based on adjudication. Previous administrations have "prioritized violent crimes" for deportation, leaving about 20 million people at a time outside the system of legal permanent residency, and another 40 million of their family members who rely on them with legal status but precarious. Being custom rather than law, when Stephen Miller and his white supremacist posse comes in they can suspend that, and work at odds with the court and the process. They literally wait until these people check in with the courts and black bag them on their way out of the courtroom.
The US agricultural, construction, and food service sectors have come to almost completely rely on this system permitting either nominally illegal cash-under-the-table work, or "I can't actually prove he's illegal" work, or work performed under a green card sought after the delays and deferred prosecutions in that court date permit the immigrant to start a family and see their kids through college.
It’s broken by design because certain key US industries, like construction, hospitality, restaurants, cleaning, and agriculture, are dependent on a supply of under the table below minimum wage and tax and benefit free labor.
> In case of (2) aren't immigration laws there for a reason
Sure, everything ultimately exist for some reason, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with the reasoning :)
I don't know what the answer is (also an outsider), but I think there is a third possibility of people just disagreeing with the move of "Lets forcible check every single potentially illegal immigrant, so we can get rid of the illegal ones" from a purely humanitarian perspective, regardless if ICE might be abusing their power or if they're only removing illegal immigrants.
Edit: I'm wondering if positing two options like that is actually engagement bait of sorts, already we have two confident commentators saying "It's N of course" where N is both 1 and 2, and I myself fell into the trap of thinking of the third missing one :)
> I think there is a third possibility of people just disagreeing with the move of "Lets forcible check every single potentially illegal immigrant, so we can get rid of the illegal ones" from a purely humanitarian perspective, regardless if ICE might be abusing their power or if they're only removing illegal immigrants.
Okay, so bear with me, what does "forcibly" entail here? I'm an immigrant too, I also get "forcibly" (as in: I can't refuse) checked whether I'm legal or not based on how I look, which essentially boils down to spending a minute of my time taking my immigrant card (which shows that I'm legal) out of my wallet, showing it to the police officer (or whatever other government official is asking), and then going my way. This is totally not a problem. Doesn't the US have a way for immigrants to easily and unambiguously identify themselves as legal immigrants?
Yes, they can be and are being but it's not much comfort to know that the courts will decide a deportation was unlawful after you've already spent 6 months being tortured in an El Salvadoran prison.
Both things are happening. One of the bigger grey areas are people in the process of adjudicating asylum requests. The cases aren’t finalized, and in many circumstances they are grabbing people as they leave their hearings.
They are also targeting other people with visas for violations both significant and trivial. Trivial meaning misspellings or typos on one of the dozens or hundreds of forms filled out at some point in the past.
Rule of law is being undermined, basically under the guise of whatever state of emergency is in place, they look to act quickly where any ambiguity exists and before courts get to weigh in.
> 1) ICE is abusing their power and illegally detaining and deporting people who shouldn't be deported, [...]
> In case of (1) can't they be taken to court?
Well, no, that’s not something people think is an adequate remedy for the abuse, for a number of reasons, most notably that a high profile aspect of the abuse of power has been the Administration removing people in violation of court orders, publicly mocking the courts while doing so, and then using the fact that the people were no longer within the control of the US government as an excuse to argue that they were immune to further court orders with respect to those people. (Also the fact that people detained have at times been held incommunicado without access to attorneys and without the ability to notify people that and where they are held makes either the detained individual or anyone else challenging their detention in court difficult.)
> and surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law like in so many corrupt countries around the world?
We have that. That’s the problem the app is responding to.
As a Ukrainian who have used similar apps in the past to avoid conscription gangs on the streets of Kiev, I can tell you that legality doesn't really matter much in situations where you are the prey and they play hunters. Especially if the current law (or the practical implementation of the law) supports their actions. It's just fear and one of the practical solutions to avoid being kidnapped on the streets with no due process and no legal way out whatsoever. You just wanna survive.
There is significant evidence for (1), although the two aren't mutually inconsistent:
– There is evidence that there is a quota on arrests, [1], rather than deportations, although the administration has inconsistently denied that quotas exist (because it would help legal cases against their strategies.) [2]
– Therefore, there have been incidents, especially in targeted cities like LA, where citizens [1] and lawful permanent residents have arrested before being released after multiple days of detention [2], although this data is not systematically gathered, e.g.:
– Recourse to the courts in a meaningful, practical way is ineffective. The administration has ignored lawsuits where judges have issued injunctions against ICE dragnets due to plausible evidence that ICE dragnets target individuals who look Latin American, e.g.:
The suspicion (although I need to look up a legal source) is that the administration intends to drag on legal cases as long as possible through appeals, perhaps even up to the Supreme Court, which will take months.
> 1) ICE is abusing their power and illegally detaining and deporting people who shouldn't be deported... can't they be taken to court?
They are doing this. And, as other have noted, taking them to court is almost impossible. In at least one case, the government has shipped people off to another country after being told clearly by the courts that they are absolutely not allowed to do so. The current government is ignoring the laws, and the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent that are proving completely inadequate; mostly because the people that would enforce that have chosen to support these illegal activities.
> 2) ICE is deporting illegal immigrants which don't have permission to be in the country... aren't immigration laws there for a reason
Yes, but it's more complicated than that. Specifically, the immigration laws are not up to the task. The US relies on undocumented/illegal workers for a significant portion of it's economy (farming being of particular note). Running rampant and arresting everyone that's here illegally has a huge negative impact.
> surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law
We do, unfortunately. The laws in the US are very frequently written to be of the variety that give broad (unnecessary) powers, and then say "well, they won't use them in a bad way". It's bad, and it should be pushed back against, but it is what it is. And the enforcement of those laws needs to be balanced against the well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
If it helps, consider that every US citizen breaks many laws every day. There's a writeup somewhere of how US citizens commit an average of 3 felonies per day. The sheer number of laws in the US, and the absolute ridiculousness of many of them, make it almost impossible _not_ to break laws.
Plus, undocumented immigrants are far less likely to break _other_ laws than the average US citizen. So "we must enforce the law" sounds good, but you'd need to arrest literally _everyone_ if you wanted to use it as a valid argument.
You apparently haven't been keeping track of all the madness.
First of all, the immigration laws aren't rational. The states aren't "legal" and "illegal", but "documented" and "undocumented". It's often the case that The Official Way To Do Things can cause you to transition from a "documented" state to an "undocumented" state and back again while in the country. Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Secondly, ICE has basically been given a target of 500k people to expel. They've always had a reputation for being more on the "bully / asshole" side than normal, and now those people have been given a blank check to crank it up to 11.
Finally, there are clear, documented cases of ICE breaking the law and then trying to play games to get around it. Go look up the Abrego-Garcia case:
1. He came in legally, and was documented -- he had a court order forbidding him from being extradited to El Salvador, and was checking in regularly.
2. They swept him up, erroneously identified him as a gang member, and shipped him out to El Salvador before anyone had a chance to do anything to protest
3. They admitted in court that extraditing him was a mistake; but then said, "Well, he's out of our jurisdiction now, we can't do anything to get him back."
4. When, after months of wrangling, they finally did bring him back, they decided to charge him with a crime for something he did years ago (even though they didn't decide to charge him with anything back then, and had plenty of opportunities to do so earlier).
So basically, 1) The immigration laws are broken: not just and not really follow-able 2) ICE often don't follow the law unless browbeaten by the courts to do so 3) they often try to entirely avoid the courts by playing jurisdictional games.
There's a good reason that large numbers of intelligent, dedicated patriots are organizing to oppose ICE.
> Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Can you provide an example of such transition (for the context of the discussion)?
I think this already means that he was in deportation proceedings, no?
My understanding (perhaps not complete, and I would like to learn more) is that he was in deportation process and the only place he could not get deported to was El Salvador.
My understanding is the court said not to send him back to El Salvador (he is from there) because he's an El Salvadorean gang member, and a rival gang would kill him there.
I'll try to explain this in a nuanced manner, as someone who dislikes both sides of the narrative.
The Democrats are sort of pro-immigration. Though for some reason, they strongly support illegal immigration, and seek to decriminalize it through so-called "sanctuary cities", rather than starting serious efforts at making permanent legal immigration liberal and approachable for most people.
Illegal immigration comes with major problems. It's an avenue for organized crime, and a recipe for a major humanitarian crisis. It's a driving factor in the Opioid Epidemic. Most people are aware of this, which is part of why the Democrats lost.
So now the Republicans are in charge. They are anti-immigration, and want permanent immigration to be unreachable for 99% of people. They are now running mass-deportations of illegal immigrants. The grievance which opponents have with this is that they're actively looking for illegal immigrants who are otherwise doing nothing wrong, using military-style police, in a system which doesn't allow for easy legal immigration.
Most people are somewhere in the middle, but they have to pick between two extremes. A) unsecured borders which get taken advantage of by criminal gangs, or B) your local contractor Juan getting deported by military police.
> I'll try to explain this in a nuanced manner, as someone who dislikes both sides of the narrative.
Same, and I agree with what you said, but would also like to expand on it:
> So now the Republicans are in charge. They are anti-immigration
The republican business owners/investors who employ illegal immigrants cheaply are not anti-immigration in the instances they benefit from directly.
> Most people are somewhere in the middle, but they have to pick between two extremes.
They had an alternative in the 2016 and 2020 elections with Bernie "but he isn't a Democrat" Sanders, as he understood the topic better and more honestly than any other politician, but his presidential runs were sabotaged by corpo Dems and their media outlets.
It's not a coincidence that voters are regularly backed into a corner with "lesser of two evils" to vote for. Evil is evil. Democracy in the US is illusory.
> Though for some reason, they strongly support illegal immigration, and seek to decriminalize it through so-called "sanctuary cities", rather than starting serious efforts at making permanent legal immigration liberal and approachable for most people.
Like DACA?
> It's a driving factor in the Opioid Epidemic.
Most opioids coming through the border are happening via ships at ports, not via immigrants. Not saying they don't bring drugs with them - but not remotely at the scale you describe.
> The Democrats are sort of pro-immigration. Though for some reason, they strongly support illegal immigration, and seek to decriminalize it through so-called "sanctuary cities", rather than starting serious efforts at making permanent legal immigration liberal and approachable for most people.
I think the reason for this is that illegal immigration is more beneficial to Democrats' donors than broadening legal immigration. Illegal immigrants are easy for employers to exploit beyond the limits allowed by labor law, because they are unable to turn to the police or courts for protection. The Democrats are fundamentally a business-owners party, despite their usually symbolic gestures to the left, so this is typical for them: implement anti-worker policies with a veneer of human rights.
The Republican policy is actually somewhat worse than your description. Besides using militarized policing to pick up illegal immigrants that are otherwise doing nothing wrong, they are also cutting out many of the systems of due process that would allow illegal immigrants access to the courts to appeal their deportation. As a result, ICE is also sweeping up refugees, asylum seekers, legal immigrants, and even citizens, without any real oversight.
Independent of what you think about illegal immigration, there is a core problem in that they are not following and not being held to follow due process guaranteed by the US constitution. Without due process, ICE is a de facto personal army for the president to harm whoever he wants, including arbitrary citizens, without real recourse.
As a non-American, one thing that may be hard for you to understand is that immigration is a core principle. Now, with each wave, immigration has also had a popular reaction to it, but this reaction is not universal—many Americans understand their ancestors were once the same hated immigrants. So, the feelings in the country about immigration are mixed. It is also a FACT that immigration is a huge driver of the economy, spurring population growth, providing cheap labor, and contributing delicious ethnic restaurants.
Most illegal/undocumented immigrants in the US are otherwise productive and law-abiding. They have a job, they pay taxes. When they have kids here, their kids are citizens. What happens to that family when ICE deports a parent?
I live in DC. ICE has detained people in my neighborhood every day this week. Kids at my child’s school are now missing their parents. It seems to be the case that ICE is mostly pulling over drivers of work trucks and vans, and detaining anyone who’s brown-skinned and doesn’t have immigration papers on them (I’m white and was born here; I do not walk around with my birth certificate).
So, yes, both #1 and #2 are in play, but I would encourage you to question the underlying assumption that deporting illegal immigrants constitutes an unalloyed good. As a citizen, I don’t think it does and oppose these actions. I would happily provide a path to citizenship for any immigrant that had a good track record of living here peacefully and contributing.
> but I would encourage you to question the underlying assumption that deporting illegal immigrants constitutes an unalloyed good
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, especially when the illegal immigrant is otherwise law abiding, pays their taxes and positively contributes to the society, but the whole point of rule of law is that, well, laws are applied consistently and equally to everyone (or at least that's the unattainable ideal we strive for). We can't be like "hey, let's not enforce the law here in this case" just because we don't like the law, because then the next guy in charge might not enforce whatever he thinks is a bad law, or worse - only enforce it on his enemies (like we see in so many totalitarian countries, and apparently what's starting to happen in the US if I am to believe the news/some of the comments here?).
Right, the problem is you're assuming immigration agents are following the law. You need to alert people of where they are to protect them. People who are actually here legally are being arrested, waiting for them outside courtrooms. There have been several cases of actual American citizens detained illegally based on racial profiling. There's no proper due process. Additionally, the treatment of those who are detained is very inhumane, using tactics to induce fear.
It’s #2, and the status quo for quite some time is that immigration laws were just not enforced, or administratively bypassed. That’s why there’s a lot of pushback.
That’s absolutely not why there’s a lot of pushback.
There’s a lot of pushback because of:
- a general sense of authoritarian policy degrading American democracy
- inhumane treatment of detainees
- illegal deportations happening with no due process (see option 1)
- humanitarian concerns over people being deported to states they’re seeking asylum from for valid and good reasons
- hyperbolic claims of every immigrant being a “rapist criminal” degrading public discourse leading to further profiling of anyone who looks like they might be an immigrant
I could come up with more but you get the point - the pushback is about _far more_ than whatever you’re toeing the line about here.
Or 3) there are illegal immigrants and ICE is deporting them according to the law, BUT some people think this is unjust and want to do something against it. The democratic process to change laws is too slow or doesn't work properly, or there is no majority to change the law.
Remember there is a difference between legal and legitimate. You don't have to do something just because it is the law (well, you could define "have to" to mean what the law says, but then it becomes pretty circular).
Historically, often behavior changes before the applicable laws change. Think about the acceptance of gay relationships, or the use of cannabis. If people don't sometimes break the law, society can't evolve. That doesn't mean the rule of law has to break down. I think the rule of law is very important and would uphold it in most cases, but there are certain cases where conscience might order one to break or circumvent a law.
> As far as I can see there are two possibilities here
Most of it is (1), but even in the case of (2) the problem is that this is an outlaw organization which is not following any established law or process.
Legally, deporting people who are here out of status is fine. But to do that properly, you'd have to establish proof of who they are and why they are out of status, in front of an immigration court. ICE bypasses all that and just sends masked unidentified thugs to the street to grab people left and right and disappear them into secret detention centers with no access to lawyers. About as illegal behavior as it gets.
Or (3) what ICE does is illegal AND you can't legally challenge their action until AFTER you have been deported to a torture prison in a 3rd world country you've never been to.
The reason people want to avoid ICE is the same reason you have a smoke detector: Even if you do everything right, a fire can still happen and when it does you're happy you had it.
The US constitution guarantees certain rights to any person on their soil, without them having to be citizens. These rights are currently being violated with approval of at least two branches of government.
There are between 8-14 million such individuals in the US.
Many of them have lived here for decades, work peacefully, and have built lives. Many of them have married citizen spouses, and also have children who are citizens.
They are friends, neighbors, and colleagues. They are often the best and most ambitious among us.
It would be an ethical, moral, and humanitarian catastrophe to suddenly expel all of them.
It would also be an economic disaster, as this population forms a disproportionate fraction of the labor force.
The price of goods and services would skyrocket if not outright be lost from the market forever. Inflation would obliterate savings.
The US immigration system is wildly irrational and violates the rights of American citizens. It must be radically reformed.
There cannot be a comprehensive system of worker's rights when millions of workers are present without documentation. We cannot support a higher minimum wage and, at the same time, take in millions of workers who will work for less. It is a violation of the rights of Americans not to have a real and effective border, and for immigration laws not to be enforced.
I kinda feel like it pays off to do a quick search before asking hyper broad questions with hypothetical that betray that you did not spent 10 seconds on Google.
I think (2) is understandable logic, but is incomplete. “People who don’t have permission to be there shouldn’t be there” equates law == what’s right. I think past administrations have recognized that while they are there illegally, they also have economic value. Some past government actions may have even gone so far as to recognize humanitarian reasons, beyond their economic value.
However, the greater evil isn’t that ICE is enforcing the law. It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
I think details also matter here. Should ICE be allowed to come to a Home Depot, a Walmart, elementary schools, and "randomly" interrogate people? Who are they picking? How is it possible to do this without discriminating people based on ethnicity etc while also avoiding the ridiculous cost of interrogating everyone every day or the futility of pure randomness?
The real fear in my mind is not what this circus of an administration does for the next three - four years but that the next administrations will continue these practices just by sheer inertia (same with tariffs).
>>that while they are there illegally, they also have economic value
that while they are there illegally, they can also vote illegally for one particular party (the same party that doesn't like voter ID laws).
Fixed it for you.
>>It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
Due to the massive volume of uncontrolled immigration under Biden, "due process" as envisaged by activists would take 10's of years to complete which is obviously not practical.
The app isn't needed. It is a flex response by lefties that are being trolled. There is theater and history on both sides.
Lookup videos on YouTube of MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. Donated in the 1880's, it used to be 35 acre urban park oasis. Now it is a rodent infested drug haven. Between 4 PM and sunrise, the area is taken over by unlicensed street vendors and drug dealers, all of whom are controlled by Mexican cartel gangs using sidewalk landlords. You can purchase fentanyl in bulk, and walk one mile down the street and sell it for three times profit.
The surrounding area is mostly apartments, with no positive tax revenue base, residential or commercial. It has a population density four times Manhattan, New York, 50,000 in one square mile. 67% of residents in the community are unauthorized immigrants. 67% of children don't have a father. Most apartments are shared by two families. Only 20% of residents vote.
90% of fire department calls are overdose and illegal open bonfires set by homeless. 49% of street lights are disabled, the city estimates three years to fix. Building owners have to paint their exterior walls every day to remove gang signs. The Home Depot most profitable product is paint, even though it is id-restricted and locked up. Most of the people in the park long term are repeat criminal offenders. The city has converted the area into a de facto dumping ground for people released from jail.
Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass lives nearby.
A few weeks ago ICE made a cameo walk through trolling appearance for a few minutes, and everyone freaked out. Of course they didn't really do anything. How could they? It would require at least 500 police to sweep an area that large. Many in the park have weapons.
Bonus fact: The Tijuana River is actually in the US. It exits into the San Diego Bay watershed at Imperial Beach. 70 million gallons per day of untreated sewage, and several hundred million gallons of treated effluent per day. Even with the one water treatment plant in Tijuana Mexico, (population 2.3 million) funded by the US, and a second that the US had agreed to fund, this will not reduce the illegal sewage discharge, which is estimated to increase to 200 million? Oddly, it hasn't affected home prices.
As a non-american I find this too naive of a view, the third possibility is that is already pretty selective application of the law, Elon Musk brother publicly admitted being illegal immigrants for a few years (right next to Elon, in a recorded presentation), but rich people college frats are never where the raids happen, this already selective use of the law it's one of the infuriating things about it, not to mention all the other laws this administration is already breaking that will never be prosecuted.
Didn’t you see what has been done against Abrego Garcia, and how intent the administration is to ship him off to random other countries (and how they succeeded once!) even though the courts insist he should stay?
You're missing the point courts are useless with current administration, for all practical purposes they are turning into a authoritarian regime, and many still think there is going to exist some magical elections to turn this around.
I see all the signs of Portuguese dictorship that ended in 1974, and I as first generation being raised in freedom got to hear and learn plenty of stories on how everything used to be.
Sadly also back home people have forgotten what it meant to live under authoritarian regime.
Republicans as a party now claim that non-citizens have no constitutional rights, including due process. On top of that, they claim they have a right to deport them however way they feel like, even:
- A country they know is not on the same continent they came from.
- Directly into the death camp prison of a dictatorship.
- Unaccompanied minors without any coordination to have them picked up by any government officials on the other side. Woken up at 2AM and performed intentionally without the knowledge of the judicial system. No, I'm serious, this happened this morning in what they called "Operation Silent Harvest"
The gestapo here is whisking away people into black vans wearing ski masks without presenting warrants to anybody, taking them to secret camps and refusing them access to lawyers or the ability to inform family before just... sending them wherever before legal proceedings can confirm their status.
We've already seen them not only nab citizens or legal immigrants, but know a few have been attempted to or actually flown out of the country.
> Isn't the rule of law a thing in the US?
No, the "unitary executive" has clearly decided Trump is out king and may do whatever he wants. Including a secret police.
It costs money, and the low hanging fruits of deportation are low-income families/individuals.
> In case of (1) can't they be taken to court? In case of (2) aren't immigration laws there for a reason
Police, courts and administration work until they don't. There have been cases of people arrested just because of racial profiling, which fits into Trump's racial vision.
The emblematic case IMO, has been the high-profile instance of an American citized deported because of an administrative mistake (!!); Trump has openly refused to apologize or take corrective action (!!!).
The real problem, if one accepts Oliver’s criticisms, is that this is not about law, it's about racial cleansing.
Imagine being continually aggressively questioned and detained just because you ‘might’ be an illegal immigrant based on the color of your skin, by power-hungry maga supporters.
The problem is (2) has been pushed recently by the left in America (unlike 20 years ago when it was the right that liked illegal immigration) as a racist stance, and "open borders" was a big policy idea.
So many, many thousands of illegal immigrants (renamed 1984-style to "undocumented" by the media outlets who operate in lockstep with the Democrat party) have been allowed in, and have been sheltered by businesses who like below-minimum wage labour, and by democrat cities in general.
This means there's not much left to do when left-wing activists violently defend illegal immigrants from ICE removal other than escalating ICE activities to compensate.
they still like illegal immigration, because it's good for businesses (the primary concern of the right)
its Trump/MAGA's xenophobic popularism that is reflected in ICE's thuggery (which is clearly designed to instill fear; the same way that S.Miller's plans to separate children from parents at the border was overtly designed to instill fear). It is not reflective of the traditional GOP. In fact, GOP senators have pressed Trump into making "exceptions" -- you'll notice how ICE is primarily operating in "blue" cities, and not raiding farms and chicken processing plants in the Midwest or the CA central valley -- this is not a coincidence.
It's theatre by people who don't understand how their own government works, nor cares to learn. So they look for shortcuts with ineffective protest theatre so they can pat themselves on the shoulder for "doing something about it"
Meanwhile their government continues rightward unimpeded.
People voted for segregation and ICE deportations. The point of protest theater like sit-ins and ICE protests is to make people confront what they voted for instead of being blissfully unaware of the harms. We live in a democracy, so the most effective way to reverse something that people voted for is by education, and voters will not seek out that education themselves.
Often, it is the people who don't understand protest who understand the least about government. Many have the idea that if a democratically elected government does something they don't like, violently overthrowing the government will solve the problem. If the next government is a democracy, the same people will vote for the same policies.
I suppose the problem with it is that such "protest theater" could only work if the people who support the regime are capable of empathy for those who are objecting.
In this case the opposite is true - this administration won on an explicit platform of retribution against political enemies of the right and an erosion of the constitutional order.
Which is to say... they're getting what they wanted. Presumably every reminder that they're causing distress amongst people they are targeting will only increase their satisfaction.
>The point of protest theater like sit-ins and ICE protests is to make people confront what they voted for instead of being blissfully unaware of the harms.
???
How does a bunch of diehard democrats holding up signs in front of some government building make people "make people confront what they voted for"? I'm sure democrats don't need any extra convincing, and any Trump voters isn't going to suddenly change their mind, any more than a bunch of evangelicals picketing outside an abortion clinic is going to convince a democrat's mind.
I'm not sure it's limited to the US. I think most activism is up against fairly strong powers ... so it's going to be ineffective most of the time isn't it?
I think the issue is that in order to be effective, you have to know what you are doing. I think what the comment implied is that many activists are too lazy to learn, and rather engage in theatrics to feel good.
In Belgium, you're not allowed to say you see traffic cameras on the highway. Result: people replace the word with something else: falling stars. So in Belgium on the radio they announce falling stars on highway E19 north of Antwerp. Everyone knows the meaning.
In Germany, you must only give a positive review as reference for a job application. Result: scale changes: 'performed' (worst), 'performed well' (OK) 'performed extremely well' (satisfied) -- with various levels of exaggeration. Everyone knows the meaning.
In both of these situations an authority who is known (radio host, employer) are a filter of information and purposefully use the wrong terminology to address the issue in a truthful manner. The problem is that curation costs resources (time/money/energy) which you may or may not have scarcity of. I'd say multiple reports of same location warrants a usable sign, but Micah Lee's experience says otherwise: still usually false positives due to people panicking and not analyzing the situation correctly.
Some great tips on how to engage in illegal activity without facing accountability under democratically made laws. I hear in South Africa, the taxis started a war against the government when the government wanted them to pay toll fees on the roads, and I hear some criminals avoid paying taxes by hiding their assets. So many great ways to flaunt a society's laws.
This is one of those articles about activism that to me just reads as gatekeeping. The creator of the app clearly isn’t a bastion of knowledge about this stuff but he’s taking on incredible personal risk to try and do something. While it might just be theater, I don’t disagree about that, theater is still great at getting the word out and building a movement.
Progressive politics has a natural 'kitchen sink' risk.
A group proposes to build simple, affordable housing and funds it. Then another group comes along and says that people with affordable housing deserve energy-efficient, low-cost-to-run homes, so the plans get upgraded with better windows and walls, and the cost doubles. Then another group comes along and says that affordable housing should be green with solar panels and battery power. And another group says that all affordable housing should be fully accessible, so the size of all doorways is upgraded. And another group says that affordable housing should be ecologically beneficial, so now the housing requires a green roof and rainwater collection. And so on, until the cost is 5x the original cost and the project never gets built, and a bunch of time is wasted.
This is the risk. Each group along the way had noble motives, but by trying to solve every problem at once, nothing gets done and no one gets helped. By contrast, politics that are instead centered on tearing down systems and rules don't have this, because any random action is a step towards the goal.
I feel like this is happening here to a degree. Instead of producing a functional alternative, this well-intentioned person is picking apart all the problems with the current approach. They may be 100% "correct" in their assessments, but politically, they are letting the air out of their own balloon.
I would argue that they just don't have the ability to say no to each other. If you say no, you're immediately judged and "other'd" by your own allies. It's not a healthy ecosystem of thought.
There's also the groups that, as can be seen in the realm of California housing, will use any and all kitchen sink tactics to intentionally delay change while acting 'progressive', even if what they're actually fighting for is exactly the opposite of what it was yesterday.
Author clearly points to a (more) functional alternative—their local group with volunteers verifying all the reports (with 90%+ false positive rates, even before malicious interference, which is strong evidence that this app is probably worse than useless for anyone taking it seriously; after all, the potential number of real reports is bounded by rare events, while the potential number of malicious fake reports is effectively unbounded).
Author and others also offered to help through collaboration with existing groups or through open source audits and code contributions, both of which were promptly refused.
Sure, author didn’t offer a functional alternative in the form of a P2P free-for-all app. Probably because that’s a not viable strategy if you actually want to help.
Sure, but there's also a minimum quality required before the product is safe to use.
If I make gas masks, they can be useful even if they aren't resistant to every single chemical out there. But if they are really bad, they may encourage users to take risks without providing adequate protection.
From what I've seen, taking action against ICE can be a risky activity and many people will want to protect their privacy while doing it. This app promises to protect privacy. However, if the Joshua (author of the app) fails to protect privacy (e.g. hosts on an insecure server that someone from ICE can get into, or becomes subject to a warrant with gag order) the app may do harm.
I'm not saying the app is harmful right now, but there are definitely signs that it could become that. If Micah spots issues in that area, and the Joshua fails to respond to criticism, I think it's completely right for Micah to publish their concerns.
Obviously in a polite, constructive way and while specifically pointing out that they believe the app author means no harm. The way I read Micah's article it seems fine.
Why is being clueless, refusing help, and taking risks admirable... It's theater that a lot of people think is real, potentially endangering them if they rely on the app.
The app makes specific promises ("the app ensures user privacy by storing no personal data, making it impossible to trace reports back to individual users") while the Hope talk shows that the writer of the app is not familiar with very common techniques that are required to keep these promises. Warranty canaries, reverse engineering, and security though obscurity are all concepts that anyone making legally sensitive secure software should be familiar with.
To make an analogy, if someone wants to start a taxi service and you say they're not qualified because they don't know about different types of tires and how to change the front lights, that would be gatekeeping. If they don't know you should sometimes change tires and turn the lights on when it's dark you should have doubts about their ability to safely run a taxi service.
You could argue that he doesn't need open source and a warranty canary, but from what Micah says, it sounds like the app author doesn't have the required knowledge to evaluate the option.
Playing on the rail tracks also incurs incredible personal risk -- doesn't make it wise. Seems fair to me for the author to give their opinion that they don't believe this to be an effective form of protest. Especially given that they list their specific concerns.
It's not every day someone sacrifices their own time and resources to provide material assistance to people breaking the law. Are we looking forward to a future where apps appear for other sorts of illegal activity like drug dealing, human trafficking, prostitution, gang wars?
Just think of all the societal progress we are potentially missing out on if only more people would think of those who flaunt the laws that a nation has democratically decided upon.
I fail to understand how this app could help anybody... beyond the false-positive issue, how is this not a tool that no matter how it's used it will cause more chaos on any possible situation. Nearly on every case scenario this will be more likely to get people in danger.
> I fail to understand how this app could help anybody
If I was law enforcement, didn't like people reporting on my activities, and I saw Apple's boss getting cozy with my boss, I'd be eager to start getting help knowing exactly who is reporting me. And considering how the app works (using Apple's servers, with identifiable information), I'm pretty sure people using this app is helping someone, maybe not the ones we should be cheering on though.
Interesting, in the first video Joshua mentions at 4m30s the user needs to have serious willpower to report every 5 min (ie. he feels the app is protection against a Sybil attack). I don't think this is the case. All you need is the following:
1) iOS VM (Corellium?).
2) Desktop automation on your host OS (e.g. AutoHotKey).
3) Spoof GPS with random USA-specific or carefully curated GPS coords (targeting neighborhoods they don't like?). This can be done with a SDR or a local application (which I know exist for Android but I am not sure for iOS; it'd depend on VM?).
A determined adversary would have multiple of these setups. It'd require a little bit of tech know-how, but as you can see it isn't rocket science, and an adversary with a lot of money to burn would just hire someone to do this. All in all, this application is not safe against a hostile US government, but a random low IQ MAGA idiot who is determined would even do this manually, in mom's basement indeed. You can even set an alarm every 5 min.
And remember, from [1]. The brownshirts were in numbers, and identifiable (at least after 1926 [2]).
Some difficult questions for sympathizers of illegal immigrants.
1) Why is this app allowed on the App Store? It’s helping illegal activity within the borders of a sovereign nation.
2) Nations are allowed to determine who comes and doesn’t to their countries as per their right to rule as a sovereign nation and their national security interests. Nobody vetted the 11-13 million people who poured over the border. It’s impossible to imagine that democratic institutions will not change their behavior if you get an influx of 11-13 million people, who then have children who become citizens. I mean that votes are just a counting game. So if you get more voters who are anti-abortion but previously you were all pro-choice, then that changes culture. So why shouldn’t countries get to decide who comes and goes?
3) Why shouldn’t countries have their own culture? Or not want to be multicultural? If there are laws that prevent racism or discrimination against different religions, then that’s not multiculturalism, just civility. Why is assimilation unacceptable for someone who moves in?
4) If you want to talk about the injustices of colonialism, then note that a) there are many countries that overcame those barriers despite similar histories to the country of origin of these illegal immigrants. Look at India, for instance.
And b) not all illegal immigrants are more poor countries, but from thriving economies like China, India, Mexico or Brazil. Why is it justified that thriving or different economies should offload people who struggle in their own countries to other countries? How is that responsible governance? Countries should be responsible for their own poor people.
5) Many Latin American nations were already developmentally different, or delayed from another perspective, when colonialists landed on their shores. It’s clear there are cultural differences which produce incompatibility in how people want to live or govern. Ideally, nations whose people were subjected to racism or colonialism would use Japan or Brazil as models for national growth and development. Why should people be forced to live together if they don’t want the same things?
>1) Why is this app allowed on the App Store? It’s helping illegal activity within the borders of a sovereign nation.
AFAIK courts have ruled that flashing your high beams to warn people of speed traps is protected under the first amendment. If that's protected, I don't see why warning people of ICE traps isn't protected either.
1) because ICE deportations are often performed illegally, are given target numbers to hit (i.e. the volume matters more than the correctness) and run by an administration that doesn't respect the courts.
2) not sure this is a question. People are predominantly upset because of ICE's methods, which are often aggressive and brutal (imprison first ask questions weeks or months later).
3) not sure this is a question either. My parents have no idea how to play super mario, so culture changes quite a lot internally within seemingly culturally homogenous communities.
4) who gives a shit about colonialism. Its just ironic when yanks talk about "muh America" when their entire culture is one of being immigrants. I believe that's the reason people bring it up.
5) People are already "forced" to live together wanting different things. Every US election is like 50/50.
So idk how these questions are difficult. Also ICE go after legal migrants too, so this ain't just about "illegals". The irish guy who fucked his foot up and couldn't take his flight home went through every piece of due process possible and still got shit-canned. ICE are monstrous and oppressive.
The majority of cases people consider legal amongst these are asylum seekers. Being given asylum is not a right, and it’s within the prerogative of a country to revoke asylum or holding a green card.
The ~50/50 in a democracy is okay when people are aligned along an American identity, they just differ along what an ideal society looks like. That’s fine.
I agree people should not be jailed indefinitely or treated brutally. That is uncivil and unacceptable treatment of people in general. Countries need to work together to find a solution to this.
> 1) because ICE deportations are often performed illegally
How often? Do you have some statistics? Is it 100 illegal deportations a day, or like 1 a quarter? How many citizens or people with valid visas or green cards has he deported in total? Is it like 1, or almost 1?
> run by an administration that doesn't respect the courts.
Can you cite some stats here? As far as I can tell Trump respects the courts more than Biden.
> People are predominantly upset because of ICE's methods, which are often aggressive and brutal (imprison first ask questions weeks or months later).
If the illegal aliens don't like it they are free leave. In fact I believe Trump is paying them to leave and giving them a free ticket out of the US. Not sure why they insist on staying. Literally millions of people get through the day every day without breaking the law, I'm sure they can also do it if they give it a try.
Readit News
As far as I can see there are two possibilities here: 1) ICE is abusing their power and illegally detaining and deporting people who shouldn't be deported, or 2) ICE is deporting illegal immigrants which don't have permission to be in the country so they shouldn't be in the country. In case of (1) can't they be taken to court? In case of (2) aren't immigration laws there for a reason, and surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law like in so many corrupt countries around the world? Isn't the rule of law a thing in the US?
The methods ICE is using currently to detain people for deportation look a lot like secret police tactics for disappearing folks and resemble kidnapping, when a van full of armed men with face masks jump out and remove you from your vehicle, zip-tie you, and transport you to a secret facility.
There have also been reported situations of ICE officers breaking windows of cars and pulling folks out, when all they had was an administrative warrant.
And that doesn’t include the recently reported and videoed situation of an ICE agent firing at a vehicle that was stopped by ICE agents.
All of these tactics increase fear among the populace, and that fear is what drives apps like these. Whether you’re here legally or not, no one deserves the secret police tactics that fly in the face of the principles of limited government and freedom of movement.
One the one hand, you have maybe-semi-reasonable arguments about law and social problems. On the other, you have extremely violent enforcement, carried out in discriminatory ways, which will also end up affecting the entirely innocent. While producing a huge prison population for private profit.
The war on drugs brought all sorts of search and seizure, including forfeiture (effectively a war on cash allowing the police to steal people's money). The war on terror brought mass surveillance and much more intrusive searches at airports. The war on immigration will bring "papers please" to American citizens, as well as the ability to disappear inconvenient public speakers.
You could argue that this is also a trial run to gauge the American public and governmental tolerance for actual secret police on the streets disappearing people (both depressingly high, it turns out.)
Committing a crime might well result in your movement being curtailed, and addressing crime is definitely within the remit of limited government.
ICE has been going after low hanging fruit, ie arresting people when they go to their immigration court dates(aka following the rules).
> (1) can't they be taken to court?
Once arrested, ICE will ship people off to many states away(if you're european, imagine being arrested in the north of France and sent to a camp in southern Spain).
Once you are arrested by ICE, it's very difficult to be found. There is no arrest announcement or ability to call family. Basically you disappear into this system and if you have someone hire a lawyer, the lawyer essentially has to search for you in various prisons.
Sure they can be taken to court, but the arrestee wont see any restitution for the terrible conditions they were illegally forced into. If you do win in court( Kilmar Abrego), they'll send you somewhere even worse out of spite.
Dead Comment
As far as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), if you have no valid status in the US then going to court does not mean that you are following the rules, no? I mean, why would anyone with a valid status have to go to immigration court?
ICE officers have no badges. They wear masks. Sometimes they have no uniforms. They grab people off the streets, and stuff them into white vans. They may send those people to foreign prisons, even if a judge tells them not to. Some of the people they take are natural-born citizens.
Taking them to court works sometimes. But ICE will often attempt to move people out of state quickly, and they won't always say where those people went. And as I mentioned above, the administration has just straight-up ignored multiple court orders.
Courts are a cute legal fiction that only works if the people with guns agree to listen to them.
Where I live, which is the suburbs in Ohio and only mildly gun happy by US standards, I’d estimate that if you went house to house busting in doors with masks and no ID you’d make it less than ten houses before you’d get a face full of buck shot.
Some of the border states where they’re doing this like Texas and Arizona I’d say no more than three houses.
even if they don't get sent to a foreign prison, they are sending them to prisons in other states, making it extremely difficult for their families to help them get due process
"Tren de Aragua? MS-13? What are you talking about? I work for ICE. No, you can't see my badge."
What we have instead is a regulation that almost prohibits immigration, but which has a whole bunch of grey areas, exceptions to the rule that qualify you for some special status, and courts that are overloaded by a factor of ~100 relative to what they would need to do their job, or overloaded by a factor of ~10 relative to what they would need to do a terrible pro forma job. While waiting for a court date (let's say you walk in and claim asylum) you are granted a special status by administrative custom which says that nobody is coming after you until after your status is adjudicated. Deportation is "deferred", and can be rescinded after the fact based on adjudication. Previous administrations have "prioritized violent crimes" for deportation, leaving about 20 million people at a time outside the system of legal permanent residency, and another 40 million of their family members who rely on them with legal status but precarious. Being custom rather than law, when Stephen Miller and his white supremacist posse comes in they can suspend that, and work at odds with the court and the process. They literally wait until these people check in with the courts and black bag them on their way out of the courtroom.
The US agricultural, construction, and food service sectors have come to almost completely rely on this system permitting either nominally illegal cash-under-the-table work, or "I can't actually prove he's illegal" work, or work performed under a green card sought after the delays and deferred prosecutions in that court date permit the immigrant to start a family and see their kids through college.
Sure, everything ultimately exist for some reason, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with the reasoning :)
I don't know what the answer is (also an outsider), but I think there is a third possibility of people just disagreeing with the move of "Lets forcible check every single potentially illegal immigrant, so we can get rid of the illegal ones" from a purely humanitarian perspective, regardless if ICE might be abusing their power or if they're only removing illegal immigrants.
Edit: I'm wondering if positing two options like that is actually engagement bait of sorts, already we have two confident commentators saying "It's N of course" where N is both 1 and 2, and I myself fell into the trap of thinking of the third missing one :)
Okay, so bear with me, what does "forcibly" entail here? I'm an immigrant too, I also get "forcibly" (as in: I can't refuse) checked whether I'm legal or not based on how I look, which essentially boils down to spending a minute of my time taking my immigrant card (which shows that I'm legal) out of my wallet, showing it to the police officer (or whatever other government official is asking), and then going my way. This is totally not a problem. Doesn't the US have a way for immigrants to easily and unambiguously identify themselves as legal immigrants?
Yes, they can be and are being but it's not much comfort to know that the courts will decide a deportation was unlawful after you've already spent 6 months being tortured in an El Salvadoran prison.
Dead Comment
They are also targeting other people with visas for violations both significant and trivial. Trivial meaning misspellings or typos on one of the dozens or hundreds of forms filled out at some point in the past.
Rule of law is being undermined, basically under the guise of whatever state of emergency is in place, they look to act quickly where any ambiguity exists and before courts get to weigh in.
> In case of (1) can't they be taken to court?
Well, no, that’s not something people think is an adequate remedy for the abuse, for a number of reasons, most notably that a high profile aspect of the abuse of power has been the Administration removing people in violation of court orders, publicly mocking the courts while doing so, and then using the fact that the people were no longer within the control of the US government as an excuse to argue that they were immune to further court orders with respect to those people. (Also the fact that people detained have at times been held incommunicado without access to attorneys and without the ability to notify people that and where they are held makes either the detained individual or anyone else challenging their detention in court difficult.)
> and surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law like in so many corrupt countries around the world?
We have that. That’s the problem the app is responding to.
> Isn't the rule of law a thing in the US?
Not particularly, in this area, no.
– There is evidence that there is a quota on arrests, [1], rather than deportations, although the administration has inconsistently denied that quotas exist (because it would help legal cases against their strategies.) [2]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ices-tactics-draw-criticism...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/03/trump-admini...
– Therefore, there have been incidents, especially in targeted cities like LA, where citizens [1] and lawful permanent residents have arrested before being released after multiple days of detention [2], although this data is not systematically gathered, e.g.:
[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-08/how-many...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/jemmy-jimenez-rosa-immigration-deta...
– Recourse to the courts in a meaningful, practical way is ineffective. The administration has ignored lawsuits where judges have issued injunctions against ICE dragnets due to plausible evidence that ICE dragnets target individuals who look Latin American, e.g.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/ice-border-p...
The suspicion (although I need to look up a legal source) is that the administration intends to drag on legal cases as long as possible through appeals, perhaps even up to the Supreme Court, which will take months.
They are doing this. And, as other have noted, taking them to court is almost impossible. In at least one case, the government has shipped people off to another country after being told clearly by the courts that they are absolutely not allowed to do so. The current government is ignoring the laws, and the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent that are proving completely inadequate; mostly because the people that would enforce that have chosen to support these illegal activities.
> 2) ICE is deporting illegal immigrants which don't have permission to be in the country... aren't immigration laws there for a reason
Yes, but it's more complicated than that. Specifically, the immigration laws are not up to the task. The US relies on undocumented/illegal workers for a significant portion of it's economy (farming being of particular note). Running rampant and arresting everyone that's here illegally has a huge negative impact.
> surely we don't want to normalize selective application of law
We do, unfortunately. The laws in the US are very frequently written to be of the variety that give broad (unnecessary) powers, and then say "well, they won't use them in a bad way". It's bad, and it should be pushed back against, but it is what it is. And the enforcement of those laws needs to be balanced against the well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
If it helps, consider that every US citizen breaks many laws every day. There's a writeup somewhere of how US citizens commit an average of 3 felonies per day. The sheer number of laws in the US, and the absolute ridiculousness of many of them, make it almost impossible _not_ to break laws.
Plus, undocumented immigrants are far less likely to break _other_ laws than the average US citizen. So "we must enforce the law" sounds good, but you'd need to arrest literally _everyone_ if you wanted to use it as a valid argument.
First of all, the immigration laws aren't rational. The states aren't "legal" and "illegal", but "documented" and "undocumented". It's often the case that The Official Way To Do Things can cause you to transition from a "documented" state to an "undocumented" state and back again while in the country. Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Secondly, ICE has basically been given a target of 500k people to expel. They've always had a reputation for being more on the "bully / asshole" side than normal, and now those people have been given a blank check to crank it up to 11.
Finally, there are clear, documented cases of ICE breaking the law and then trying to play games to get around it. Go look up the Abrego-Garcia case:
1. He came in legally, and was documented -- he had a court order forbidding him from being extradited to El Salvador, and was checking in regularly.
2. They swept him up, erroneously identified him as a gang member, and shipped him out to El Salvador before anyone had a chance to do anything to protest
3. They admitted in court that extraditing him was a mistake; but then said, "Well, he's out of our jurisdiction now, we can't do anything to get him back."
4. When, after months of wrangling, they finally did bring him back, they decided to charge him with a crime for something he did years ago (even though they didn't decide to charge him with anything back then, and had plenty of opportunities to do so earlier).
So basically, 1) The immigration laws are broken: not just and not really follow-able 2) ICE often don't follow the law unless browbeaten by the courts to do so 3) they often try to entirely avoid the courts by playing jurisdictional games.
There's a good reason that large numbers of intelligent, dedicated patriots are organizing to oppose ICE.
Can you provide an example of such transition (for the context of the discussion)?
The why was he
> checking in regularly.
I think this already means that he was in deportation proceedings, no?
My understanding (perhaps not complete, and I would like to learn more) is that he was in deportation process and the only place he could not get deported to was El Salvador.
The Democrats are sort of pro-immigration. Though for some reason, they strongly support illegal immigration, and seek to decriminalize it through so-called "sanctuary cities", rather than starting serious efforts at making permanent legal immigration liberal and approachable for most people.
Illegal immigration comes with major problems. It's an avenue for organized crime, and a recipe for a major humanitarian crisis. It's a driving factor in the Opioid Epidemic. Most people are aware of this, which is part of why the Democrats lost.
So now the Republicans are in charge. They are anti-immigration, and want permanent immigration to be unreachable for 99% of people. They are now running mass-deportations of illegal immigrants. The grievance which opponents have with this is that they're actively looking for illegal immigrants who are otherwise doing nothing wrong, using military-style police, in a system which doesn't allow for easy legal immigration.
Most people are somewhere in the middle, but they have to pick between two extremes. A) unsecured borders which get taken advantage of by criminal gangs, or B) your local contractor Juan getting deported by military police.
Same, and I agree with what you said, but would also like to expand on it:
> So now the Republicans are in charge. They are anti-immigration
The republican business owners/investors who employ illegal immigrants cheaply are not anti-immigration in the instances they benefit from directly.
> Most people are somewhere in the middle, but they have to pick between two extremes.
They had an alternative in the 2016 and 2020 elections with Bernie "but he isn't a Democrat" Sanders, as he understood the topic better and more honestly than any other politician, but his presidential runs were sabotaged by corpo Dems and their media outlets.
It's not a coincidence that voters are regularly backed into a corner with "lesser of two evils" to vote for. Evil is evil. Democracy in the US is illusory.
Like DACA?
> It's a driving factor in the Opioid Epidemic.
Most opioids coming through the border are happening via ships at ports, not via immigrants. Not saying they don't bring drugs with them - but not remotely at the scale you describe.
I think the reason for this is that illegal immigration is more beneficial to Democrats' donors than broadening legal immigration. Illegal immigrants are easy for employers to exploit beyond the limits allowed by labor law, because they are unable to turn to the police or courts for protection. The Democrats are fundamentally a business-owners party, despite their usually symbolic gestures to the left, so this is typical for them: implement anti-worker policies with a veneer of human rights.
The Republican policy is actually somewhat worse than your description. Besides using militarized policing to pick up illegal immigrants that are otherwise doing nothing wrong, they are also cutting out many of the systems of due process that would allow illegal immigrants access to the courts to appeal their deportation. As a result, ICE is also sweeping up refugees, asylum seekers, legal immigrants, and even citizens, without any real oversight.
???
Most illegal/undocumented immigrants in the US are otherwise productive and law-abiding. They have a job, they pay taxes. When they have kids here, their kids are citizens. What happens to that family when ICE deports a parent?
I live in DC. ICE has detained people in my neighborhood every day this week. Kids at my child’s school are now missing their parents. It seems to be the case that ICE is mostly pulling over drivers of work trucks and vans, and detaining anyone who’s brown-skinned and doesn’t have immigration papers on them (I’m white and was born here; I do not walk around with my birth certificate).
So, yes, both #1 and #2 are in play, but I would encourage you to question the underlying assumption that deporting illegal immigrants constitutes an unalloyed good. As a citizen, I don’t think it does and oppose these actions. I would happily provide a path to citizenship for any immigrant that had a good track record of living here peacefully and contributing.
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, especially when the illegal immigrant is otherwise law abiding, pays their taxes and positively contributes to the society, but the whole point of rule of law is that, well, laws are applied consistently and equally to everyone (or at least that's the unattainable ideal we strive for). We can't be like "hey, let's not enforce the law here in this case" just because we don't like the law, because then the next guy in charge might not enforce whatever he thinks is a bad law, or worse - only enforce it on his enemies (like we see in so many totalitarian countries, and apparently what's starting to happen in the US if I am to believe the news/some of the comments here?).
Right, the problem is you're assuming immigration agents are following the law. You need to alert people of where they are to protect them. People who are actually here legally are being arrested, waiting for them outside courtrooms. There have been several cases of actual American citizens detained illegally based on racial profiling. There's no proper due process. Additionally, the treatment of those who are detained is very inhumane, using tactics to induce fear.
- a general sense of authoritarian policy degrading American democracy
- inhumane treatment of detainees
- illegal deportations happening with no due process (see option 1)
- humanitarian concerns over people being deported to states they’re seeking asylum from for valid and good reasons
- hyperbolic claims of every immigrant being a “rapist criminal” degrading public discourse leading to further profiling of anyone who looks like they might be an immigrant
I could come up with more but you get the point - the pushback is about _far more_ than whatever you’re toeing the line about here.
Remember there is a difference between legal and legitimate. You don't have to do something just because it is the law (well, you could define "have to" to mean what the law says, but then it becomes pretty circular).
Historically, often behavior changes before the applicable laws change. Think about the acceptance of gay relationships, or the use of cannabis. If people don't sometimes break the law, society can't evolve. That doesn't mean the rule of law has to break down. I think the rule of law is very important and would uphold it in most cases, but there are certain cases where conscience might order one to break or circumvent a law.
Not so much these days...
Most of it is (1), but even in the case of (2) the problem is that this is an outlaw organization which is not following any established law or process.
Legally, deporting people who are here out of status is fine. But to do that properly, you'd have to establish proof of who they are and why they are out of status, in front of an immigration court. ICE bypasses all that and just sends masked unidentified thugs to the street to grab people left and right and disappear them into secret detention centers with no access to lawyers. About as illegal behavior as it gets.
The reason people want to avoid ICE is the same reason you have a smoke detector: Even if you do everything right, a fire can still happen and when it does you're happy you had it.
The US constitution guarantees certain rights to any person on their soil, without them having to be citizens. These rights are currently being violated with approval of at least two branches of government.
ICE must act within the bounds of the legal system. If you are unhappy with their actions, an election is the remedy.
Actions like this app are not the right way to ‘fix’ things and are probably unproductive.
Many of them have lived here for decades, work peacefully, and have built lives. Many of them have married citizen spouses, and also have children who are citizens.
They are friends, neighbors, and colleagues. They are often the best and most ambitious among us.
It would be an ethical, moral, and humanitarian catastrophe to suddenly expel all of them.
It would also be an economic disaster, as this population forms a disproportionate fraction of the labor force.
The price of goods and services would skyrocket if not outright be lost from the market forever. Inflation would obliterate savings.
The US immigration system is wildly irrational and violates the rights of American citizens. It must be radically reformed.
However, the greater evil isn’t that ICE is enforcing the law. It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
The real fear in my mind is not what this circus of an administration does for the next three - four years but that the next administrations will continue these practices just by sheer inertia (same with tariffs).
that while they are there illegally, they can also vote illegally for one particular party (the same party that doesn't like voter ID laws).
Fixed it for you.
>>It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
Due to the massive volume of uncontrolled immigration under Biden, "due process" as envisaged by activists would take 10's of years to complete which is obviously not practical.
Deleted Comment
Lookup videos on YouTube of MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. Donated in the 1880's, it used to be 35 acre urban park oasis. Now it is a rodent infested drug haven. Between 4 PM and sunrise, the area is taken over by unlicensed street vendors and drug dealers, all of whom are controlled by Mexican cartel gangs using sidewalk landlords. You can purchase fentanyl in bulk, and walk one mile down the street and sell it for three times profit.
The surrounding area is mostly apartments, with no positive tax revenue base, residential or commercial. It has a population density four times Manhattan, New York, 50,000 in one square mile. 67% of residents in the community are unauthorized immigrants. 67% of children don't have a father. Most apartments are shared by two families. Only 20% of residents vote.
90% of fire department calls are overdose and illegal open bonfires set by homeless. 49% of street lights are disabled, the city estimates three years to fix. Building owners have to paint their exterior walls every day to remove gang signs. The Home Depot most profitable product is paint, even though it is id-restricted and locked up. Most of the people in the park long term are repeat criminal offenders. The city has converted the area into a de facto dumping ground for people released from jail.
Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass lives nearby.
A few weeks ago ICE made a cameo walk through trolling appearance for a few minutes, and everyone freaked out. Of course they didn't really do anything. How could they? It would require at least 500 police to sweep an area that large. Many in the park have weapons.
Bonus fact: The Tijuana River is actually in the US. It exits into the San Diego Bay watershed at Imperial Beach. 70 million gallons per day of untreated sewage, and several hundred million gallons of treated effluent per day. Even with the one water treatment plant in Tijuana Mexico, (population 2.3 million) funded by the US, and a second that the US had agreed to fund, this will not reduce the illegal sewage discharge, which is estimated to increase to 200 million? Oddly, it hasn't affected home prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Park
How MacArthur Park Became LA's Most Dangerous Spot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0odHsJvSHZE
What Happened to MacArthur Park? The Rise and Fall of LA's Urban Oasis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssU3tdAAH4
El Tijuana River National Estuarine "Research" Reserve https://maps.app.goo.gl/9gouGc9ge4ikYfgZA
Didn’t you see what has been done against Abrego Garcia, and how intent the administration is to ship him off to random other countries (and how they succeeded once!) even though the courts insist he should stay?
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I see all the signs of Portuguese dictorship that ended in 1974, and I as first generation being raised in freedom got to hear and learn plenty of stories on how everything used to be.
Sadly also back home people have forgotten what it meant to live under authoritarian regime.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
- A country they know is not on the same continent they came from.
- Directly into the death camp prison of a dictatorship.
- Unaccompanied minors without any coordination to have them picked up by any government officials on the other side. Woken up at 2AM and performed intentionally without the knowledge of the judicial system. No, I'm serious, this happened this morning in what they called "Operation Silent Harvest"
The gestapo here is whisking away people into black vans wearing ski masks without presenting warrants to anybody, taking them to secret camps and refusing them access to lawyers or the ability to inform family before just... sending them wherever before legal proceedings can confirm their status.
We've already seen them not only nab citizens or legal immigrants, but know a few have been attempted to or actually flown out of the country.
> Isn't the rule of law a thing in the US?
No, the "unitary executive" has clearly decided Trump is out king and may do whatever he wants. Including a secret police.
> can't they be taken to court?
It costs money, and the low hanging fruits of deportation are low-income families/individuals.
> In case of (1) can't they be taken to court? In case of (2) aren't immigration laws there for a reason
Police, courts and administration work until they don't. There have been cases of people arrested just because of racial profiling, which fits into Trump's racial vision.
The emblematic case IMO, has been the high-profile instance of an American citized deported because of an administrative mistake (!!); Trump has openly refused to apologize or take corrective action (!!!).
The real problem, if one accepts Oliver’s criticisms, is that this is not about law, it's about racial cleansing.
So many, many thousands of illegal immigrants (renamed 1984-style to "undocumented" by the media outlets who operate in lockstep with the Democrat party) have been allowed in, and have been sheltered by businesses who like below-minimum wage labour, and by democrat cities in general.
This means there's not much left to do when left-wing activists violently defend illegal immigrants from ICE removal other than escalating ICE activities to compensate.
I don't think that was ever the case?
The South Park "they took our jobs!" episode was 2004. The right has been against immigration since the Chinese Exclusion Act.
they still like illegal immigration, because it's good for businesses (the primary concern of the right)
its Trump/MAGA's xenophobic popularism that is reflected in ICE's thuggery (which is clearly designed to instill fear; the same way that S.Miller's plans to separate children from parents at the border was overtly designed to instill fear). It is not reflective of the traditional GOP. In fact, GOP senators have pressed Trump into making "exceptions" -- you'll notice how ICE is primarily operating in "blue" cities, and not raiding farms and chicken processing plants in the Midwest or the CA central valley -- this is not a coincidence.
It's theatre by people who don't understand how their own government works, nor cares to learn. So they look for shortcuts with ineffective protest theatre so they can pat themselves on the shoulder for "doing something about it"
Meanwhile their government continues rightward unimpeded.
Often, it is the people who don't understand protest who understand the least about government. Many have the idea that if a democratically elected government does something they don't like, violently overthrowing the government will solve the problem. If the next government is a democracy, the same people will vote for the same policies.
In this case the opposite is true - this administration won on an explicit platform of retribution against political enemies of the right and an erosion of the constitutional order.
Which is to say... they're getting what they wanted. Presumably every reminder that they're causing distress amongst people they are targeting will only increase their satisfaction.
???
How does a bunch of diehard democrats holding up signs in front of some government building make people "make people confront what they voted for"? I'm sure democrats don't need any extra convincing, and any Trump voters isn't going to suddenly change their mind, any more than a bunch of evangelicals picketing outside an abortion clinic is going to convince a democrat's mind.
If you truly think there's a moral problem here you need to campaign for secession.
[0]: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114789276549546469
In Germany, you must only give a positive review as reference for a job application. Result: scale changes: 'performed' (worst), 'performed well' (OK) 'performed extremely well' (satisfied) -- with various levels of exaggeration. Everyone knows the meaning.
In both of these situations an authority who is known (radio host, employer) are a filter of information and purposefully use the wrong terminology to address the issue in a truthful manner. The problem is that curation costs resources (time/money/energy) which you may or may not have scarcity of. I'd say multiple reports of same location warrants a usable sign, but Micah Lee's experience says otherwise: still usually false positives due to people panicking and not analyzing the situation correctly.
A group proposes to build simple, affordable housing and funds it. Then another group comes along and says that people with affordable housing deserve energy-efficient, low-cost-to-run homes, so the plans get upgraded with better windows and walls, and the cost doubles. Then another group comes along and says that affordable housing should be green with solar panels and battery power. And another group says that all affordable housing should be fully accessible, so the size of all doorways is upgraded. And another group says that affordable housing should be ecologically beneficial, so now the housing requires a green roof and rainwater collection. And so on, until the cost is 5x the original cost and the project never gets built, and a bunch of time is wasted.
This is the risk. Each group along the way had noble motives, but by trying to solve every problem at once, nothing gets done and no one gets helped. By contrast, politics that are instead centered on tearing down systems and rules don't have this, because any random action is a step towards the goal.
I feel like this is happening here to a degree. Instead of producing a functional alternative, this well-intentioned person is picking apart all the problems with the current approach. They may be 100% "correct" in their assessments, but politically, they are letting the air out of their own balloon.
Author clearly points to a (more) functional alternative—their local group with volunteers verifying all the reports (with 90%+ false positive rates, even before malicious interference, which is strong evidence that this app is probably worse than useless for anyone taking it seriously; after all, the potential number of real reports is bounded by rare events, while the potential number of malicious fake reports is effectively unbounded).
Author and others also offered to help through collaboration with existing groups or through open source audits and code contributions, both of which were promptly refused.
Sure, author didn’t offer a functional alternative in the form of a P2P free-for-all app. Probably because that’s a not viable strategy if you actually want to help.
If I make gas masks, they can be useful even if they aren't resistant to every single chemical out there. But if they are really bad, they may encourage users to take risks without providing adequate protection.
From what I've seen, taking action against ICE can be a risky activity and many people will want to protect their privacy while doing it. This app promises to protect privacy. However, if the Joshua (author of the app) fails to protect privacy (e.g. hosts on an insecure server that someone from ICE can get into, or becomes subject to a warrant with gag order) the app may do harm.
I'm not saying the app is harmful right now, but there are definitely signs that it could become that. If Micah spots issues in that area, and the Joshua fails to respond to criticism, I think it's completely right for Micah to publish their concerns.
Obviously in a polite, constructive way and while specifically pointing out that they believe the app author means no harm. The way I read Micah's article it seems fine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral
Heh, makes me think of "Full Self Driving"...
To make an analogy, if someone wants to start a taxi service and you say they're not qualified because they don't know about different types of tires and how to change the front lights, that would be gatekeeping. If they don't know you should sometimes change tires and turn the lights on when it's dark you should have doubts about their ability to safely run a taxi service.
You could argue that he doesn't need open source and a warranty canary, but from what Micah says, it sounds like the app author doesn't have the required knowledge to evaluate the option.
Often the best work comes out theough competition and revisions. Google didnt sit back and write sniveling blog posts abt how lame altavista was.
Just think of all the societal progress we are potentially missing out on if only more people would think of those who flaunt the laws that a nation has democratically decided upon.
If I was law enforcement, didn't like people reporting on my activities, and I saw Apple's boss getting cozy with my boss, I'd be eager to start getting help knowing exactly who is reporting me. And considering how the app works (using Apple's servers, with identifiable information), I'm pretty sure people using this app is helping someone, maybe not the ones we should be cheering on though.
1) iOS VM (Corellium?).
2) Desktop automation on your host OS (e.g. AutoHotKey).
3) Spoof GPS with random USA-specific or carefully curated GPS coords (targeting neighborhoods they don't like?). This can be done with a SDR or a local application (which I know exist for Android but I am not sure for iOS; it'd depend on VM?).
A determined adversary would have multiple of these setups. It'd require a little bit of tech know-how, but as you can see it isn't rocket science, and an adversary with a lot of money to burn would just hire someone to do this. All in all, this application is not safe against a hostile US government, but a random low IQ MAGA idiot who is determined would even do this manually, in mom's basement indeed. You can even set an alarm every 5 min.
And remember, from [1]. The brownshirts were in numbers, and identifiable (at least after 1926 [2]).
[1] ICE Is Nothing Like the Brownshirts, Because the Brownshirts Actually Identified Themselves https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ice-is-nothing-like-the-...
[2] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Uniforms_and_insign...
A VM can't spoof on-device attestation.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/establ...
It's still possible to do do Sybil attacks, but you need real devices, not VMs.
1) Why is this app allowed on the App Store? It’s helping illegal activity within the borders of a sovereign nation.
2) Nations are allowed to determine who comes and doesn’t to their countries as per their right to rule as a sovereign nation and their national security interests. Nobody vetted the 11-13 million people who poured over the border. It’s impossible to imagine that democratic institutions will not change their behavior if you get an influx of 11-13 million people, who then have children who become citizens. I mean that votes are just a counting game. So if you get more voters who are anti-abortion but previously you were all pro-choice, then that changes culture. So why shouldn’t countries get to decide who comes and goes?
3) Why shouldn’t countries have their own culture? Or not want to be multicultural? If there are laws that prevent racism or discrimination against different religions, then that’s not multiculturalism, just civility. Why is assimilation unacceptable for someone who moves in?
4) If you want to talk about the injustices of colonialism, then note that a) there are many countries that overcame those barriers despite similar histories to the country of origin of these illegal immigrants. Look at India, for instance.
And b) not all illegal immigrants are more poor countries, but from thriving economies like China, India, Mexico or Brazil. Why is it justified that thriving or different economies should offload people who struggle in their own countries to other countries? How is that responsible governance? Countries should be responsible for their own poor people.
5) Many Latin American nations were already developmentally different, or delayed from another perspective, when colonialists landed on their shores. It’s clear there are cultural differences which produce incompatibility in how people want to live or govern. Ideally, nations whose people were subjected to racism or colonialism would use Japan or Brazil as models for national growth and development. Why should people be forced to live together if they don’t want the same things?
AFAIK courts have ruled that flashing your high beams to warn people of speed traps is protected under the first amendment. If that's protected, I don't see why warning people of ICE traps isn't protected either.
Dead Comment
2) not sure this is a question. People are predominantly upset because of ICE's methods, which are often aggressive and brutal (imprison first ask questions weeks or months later).
3) not sure this is a question either. My parents have no idea how to play super mario, so culture changes quite a lot internally within seemingly culturally homogenous communities.
4) who gives a shit about colonialism. Its just ironic when yanks talk about "muh America" when their entire culture is one of being immigrants. I believe that's the reason people bring it up.
5) People are already "forced" to live together wanting different things. Every US election is like 50/50.
So idk how these questions are difficult. Also ICE go after legal migrants too, so this ain't just about "illegals". The irish guy who fucked his foot up and couldn't take his flight home went through every piece of due process possible and still got shit-canned. ICE are monstrous and oppressive.
The ~50/50 in a democracy is okay when people are aligned along an American identity, they just differ along what an ideal society looks like. That’s fine.
I agree people should not be jailed indefinitely or treated brutally. That is uncivil and unacceptable treatment of people in general. Countries need to work together to find a solution to this.
How often? Do you have some statistics? Is it 100 illegal deportations a day, or like 1 a quarter? How many citizens or people with valid visas or green cards has he deported in total? Is it like 1, or almost 1?
> run by an administration that doesn't respect the courts.
Can you cite some stats here? As far as I can tell Trump respects the courts more than Biden.
> People are predominantly upset because of ICE's methods, which are often aggressive and brutal (imprison first ask questions weeks or months later).
If the illegal aliens don't like it they are free leave. In fact I believe Trump is paying them to leave and giving them a free ticket out of the US. Not sure why they insist on staying. Literally millions of people get through the day every day without breaking the law, I'm sure they can also do it if they give it a try.
Dead Comment