"one of the components that caused former intelligence contractors’ concern was that ERO ONE agents will analyze both classified and nonclassified information to produce “network, link and relationship” analyses."
Should the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?
Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications I have with other citizens? Why?
Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.
US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
100%. This expansion of surveillance is a bipartisan issue. It may be easy to use Republican lawmakers and admins as a scapegoat, but doing so is akin to hiding your head in the sand.
I recall watching live when second tower was hit. US commentator immediately understood the situation and remarked how this is end of an era of freedom and how this will unavoidably bring massive surveillance state aparatus in place from now on and how entire world will be affected negatively. He was 100% correct in all he said.
But lets be clear - its US public that allowed this, over and over. Saner candidates were suppressed as not patriotic enough, entire worse than pointless wars were waged and millions died for nothing. Not US passport holders so I guess thats just an afterthought.
Dont expect rollback in your lifetime. We havent reached even the bottom yet, not with current voting mindset. Still this is what US population wants, I don't see >200 millions even just protesting.
Ya, I am a fan of the coast guard... and I think we need the FAA/TSA to keep the planes running on time. And FEMA might be laughed at in some quarters but a federal disaster response is something we should have ahead of hurricane season.
Obviously we're not talking about getting rid of FAA or FEMA, but rather breaking up DHS back how it was before and getting rid of ICE. TSA doesn't do jack squat and is almost entirely security theater; it needs to go.
And FEMA is now so ridiculously politicized maybe it does need a rebuild, when you have leadership debating whether aid is deserved or granted based on whether a county or state voted for the malignant narcissist in charge.
Yeah bring back INS, but also disqualify anyone employed by the current DoJ or DHS from holding civil service employment in the future. Hopefully they'll be facing prison or even more severe criminal penalties for their conspiracy against rights.
I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
You should rethink your position as it's not going to give you the electoral wins you think it will.
> the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
This part always pisses them off for some reason and any conversations around this cannot be had in a civil manner here without suppression. It's a real insult to people who spent years, sometimes decades, coming into a country legally.
Repeat after me: concerns about illegal immigration are not a justification to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Period.
The reason this "pisses" freedom loving people off is we're sick of hearing your talking points repeated as if they have any bearing on the argument whatsoever, while you continue to gleefully talk past the actual criticism of how our country is being destroyed.
A bunch of people crossing a border illegally can't destroy a country - just like how some planes being flown into office towers can't either. However, throwing our rights, values, and institutions in the trash as a "response" does.
In the context of this thread, it's an implicit justification.
If you earnestly do take issue with both while correctly prioritizing them, I'm sorry that the fascists have poisoned the well on your immigration issue and burnt up its political capital.
I'm ambivalent about immigration myself, but suffer the exact same shitty dynamic from felon musk (et al) waxing dishonestly about individual liberty. Now when I make arguments in support of individual liberty, I need to include much more nuance and disclaiming to distance myself from the fascists' talking points, lest what I say be taken in support of their disingenuous rallying lies.
I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars coming here legally. I don't care.
You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their family do. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's HQ for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.
That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.
Sure, and the way you feel about this is completely understandable. However, two things can be wrong at the same time. Both illegal immigration AND Melania's case can be wrong. But, using Melania's case to justify the illegal immigration is just strawman's fallacy.
The part that should actually make you mad is that the statistic is complete bs - totally false - but its taken as ground truth across the entire political right from politicians to media to influencers to the base. How and why did it get this way?
Homeless people EVERWHERE doing the Fent lean, with no effective programs to fix the issues in sight. Ever increasing amounts of people that don't even speak the language, let alone participate in the culture. Don't forget the trash and filth everywhere, and boarded-up shops and housing.
I've been to multiple cities and suburbs on the west and east coast, in the midwest, and the south, and they all have these issues to varying degrees.
At a certain point, you have to ask yourself legitimately: What is the difference between walking outside in the US and some country like Afghanistan? The difference is becoming increasingly narrower.
So I see we're scapegoating immigrants for homelessness, and general disorder in some cities. Sounds like just another variant of the rhetoric of the unwashed hordes, coming to take all our stuff and poison the blood and soil.
Disorder, drug use and homelessness aren't problems caused by immigrants, documented or undocumented.
Immigrants (even the undocumented ones) pay more in taxes, receive fewer public benefits, commit less crime, are less likely to be homeless, and more likely to have a job than natives. The differences are small in most of these cases, but its enough to put down these meritless, racist tropes.
And across the spectrum, from low to high skill, documented to undocumented, on net, immigrants contribute positively to the economy and fuel growth
If you wanted to deliberately exacerbate all those social disorder issues you claim to care about a good place to start would be mass deportation
You can always spot the addicts mainlining outrage pornography by how often they bring up the last president that didn't have the right letter next to their name.
I will never support deporting people already here unless they commit felonies. It's cruel and immoral. People come here for a better life and work opportunities, the immigration system needs reform, and nobody goes after the employers who typically support Republicans.
This is a huge, wealthy country. There's plenty of room and economic opportunity. The undocumented are not the problem. They're scape goated.
But even setting all that aside, ICE and DHS need fundamental reform, so might as well abolish them and create new agencies with all new employees.
> I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
This statistic is completely false. But you can use is as a good credibility filter. Media figures and politicians who make this claim are liars - stop believing what they say. You'll become much more well informed overnight.
An estimated 2-2.5 million immigrants were allowed to reside in the US as immigration cases were pending. Most came through ports of entry, some crossed "illegally" (a misdemeanor).
There were an estimated ~9 million apprehensions. This is the number they cite to mislead you. Apprehensions does not mean 9 million unique people, nor does it mean they all now reside in the US.
Most of those people were deported or ejected. And most of those were actually the same people trying to cross multiple times. An unintended consequence of Title 42 (the covid restrictions imposed during Trump term) was an explosion in repeat crossing attempts.
Formal deportation makes it a felony to return. Under Title 42 though people were just ejected without formal deportation and could try again without consequence. Cartels/Smugglers even started selling packages that involved multiple tries to cross the border.
I've always been curious about this mentality, but i've never met one in the wild. So do you think no immigration or coastal defense should be allowed? Does that mean everyone can just come in?
ICE and DHS were both consolidated in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The functions they perform existed before, it was just a re-org whose goal was improved information sharing.
The most common variant of the "abolish DHS" opinion simply holds that this re-org was unsuccessful and should be reverted.
So long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts, congress, or the whitehouse then these things will continue to metastasize.
The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.
While Republicans certainly have a focus on illegal immigration, support for spying on American citizens is hardly a partisan issue.
ie: 25 years of Patriot Act renewal, Flock rollouts in liberal cities, Obama’s pursuit of Snowden and not the NSA itself
There is certainly liberal leadership concerned with our rights, just as there are conservatives, but they are the minority under both partisan umbrellas.
If you have some information on how much they approve or support these programs i'm open to hearing it, but i'm not sure how much "Both parties have bad people/policies" contributes to a discussion on this specific program.
That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.
Even if you had access to all the munitions on paper, it would be extraordinarily surprising to wake up one day to the news that US citizens collectively out-gunned the US armed forces. I mean, F35s are not famous for being cheap.
Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?
Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.
Regarding who maintains them: that’s my problem to have _after_ I buy them, but today I can’t even buy them! And I picked a high-end example, of course I couldn’t maintain an F35 but maybe I would like some automatic rifles or more realistically some armed drones.
Still I think we’re saying the same thing: the founder’s arguments amount well regulated militias being a check on tyrannical government doesn’t land when the tyrannical government can just drone swarm the country into submission.
The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.
The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.
That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.
Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.
Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.
Funding dragnet surveillance vs funding dragnet surveillance is the comparison. Not precisely sure what your bizarre example means but it’s nevertheless clearly a non-sequitur.
"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.
> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
No, I am just literate enough to understand that the executive office was not solely responsible for the 'Snowden reporting' and that it is responsible for the proposal in the article above. The democrats did not create or propose a 100M domestic surveillance program but go off king
"
Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
"
I'm not giving political analysis, retard. But you are clearly so smart and clever. Tell us all about the 'Snowden reporting' that president Obama personally proposed and executed. Not sure why he is reporting on himself but mister user seven numbers is sure to be a source of truth
Also, with this administration, if you didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't' somewhere in your paperwork, citizenship can be revoked.
Basically, if they catch you in any kind of lie. It's fraud.
Could be ex post facto and seemingly innocuous act unconnected to paperwork as well. You came in. Applied for asylum. Went through the process. And, finally, you were naturalized.
Only you traveled back to your hometown in your country of origin at some point. Before or after naturalization.
Boom.
They got you. That's fraud.
Everyone needs to stay extra careful going forward.
Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.
Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?
The fraud a migrant may have committed, should the US be able to prove it, is lying on their asylum request when they said they would be, for instance, killed if they ever go back to their country of origin.
Obviously if you show up at your country of origin with a US passport asking to be let in, it casts serious doubt as to the veracity of the assertion that you will be killed if you ever go back to your country of origin.
Here's the thing, the US has to prove it. Which previous administrations never bothered to go to the trouble of doing. However, this administration is pouring over travel records, airline passenger manifests, cell phone and text message data, etc etc. They've taken to pursuing these cases.
All that to say this, now is not the time to believe there is some legal trickety-trick you can use to get around these issues. Your passport would mean nothing in the case that the Trump-Vance MAGA boys prove fraud, because you would have been shown to have used fraudulent statements to attain that passport.
So to any immigrants out there, please, please, please, don't play games with these people. Because they are not playing games with you. Be very careful to keep your story, (the one you told immigration), and your actions consistent. At minimum until such time as Trump leaves office. But in my opinion, you should probably just strive for consistency from here on out. Because MAGA can be elected back into power at any time convenient even if they lose the next few elections.
And if they get elected again, when they come back, you can bet everything you own that they will be digging through that data from the time they were out of power.
Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.
US citizens cannot be deported.
Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.
Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.
US citizens cannot be deported.
(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)
Technically it's as soon as it's provided. Once you are a citizen the only way in which it can be revoked is if you are found to have committed fraud during the immigration process.
Yeah, I'm going further and saying there should be a time limit on even the fraud piece. If a person lied on their application 50 years ago, it's too late.
The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)
If you want to build a stasi-like system then the answer to all that’s yes - which seems to be what the majority of us citizens is in favour of, otherwise they wouldn’t have elected this admin
This is why Trump is acting like he's on the ballot in November.
Since he is the face of the Republican party, voters understand they are evaluating his decisions and performance since 2024, and will be voting accordingly.
Characterizing the propublica pieces as "fake immigration charges" is pretty misleading. All of their arrests of non-illegal-immigrants has been for (bogus) charges unrelated to immigration, usually some variant of "obstruction".
"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.
"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.
There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.
> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization
You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.
In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.
> Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
You know what's funny, everything you said is valid, but, I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums. It's actually the opposite. Somehow spying is ok if they like the company.
A lot of users here have vocally admitted that having Flock cameras was okay because they were a HOA member and it gave them security of some sort and they had "nothing to hide"
Another example was Anthropic getting caught stenographically marking requests[1] and Anthropic's response when they got caught was simply "it was just an experiment" and everyone on here said it's okay.
> Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
I wish we asked this question to all our favorite tech companies too, this being a tech forum and all.
> Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1].
Your source does not establish this. "arresting" and "detaining" objectively do not mean the same thing; and the detentions described are clearly based on a good-faith belief that the subject either is not legally permitted to be in the country or is unlawfully interfering with immigration enforcement.
Where citizens have been arrested, it is not for "immigration charges" at all, but for obstruction of justice. These arrests are based on more than "probable cause"; they based on it literally observably happening right in front of the officers.
The law empowers them to make arrests in these cases, in exactly the same way that ordinary city cops are empowered to arrest people who disobey lawful orders, attempt to flee from detention, attempt to physically intervene in the arrest of someone else, etc. This is exactly as expected, because they are legally recognized as federal LEO.
The spin in this article is incredible:
> Top DHS officials, including former Secretary Kristi Noem, went further, claiming that filming ICE agents was interfering with arrests.
This is disingenuous. The problem is not "filming" ICE agents. The problem is standing in places that physically obstruct the act of arrest while holding up your cell phone. It's notable how, in videos of contentious incidents, we commonly see many people recording on cell phones in responsible ways, who are completely left alone.
Moving on:
> Some US citizens have been deported.
No; at most they evidence that people claiming to be citizens have been deported.
Your source does not name a single person who a) they can prove to be a US citizen on publicly available information and b) has been deported.
> but ICE has supralegal powers.
No, they do not. Their powers are enumerated in statute, in particular 8 USC 1357.
ProPublica is putting an obvious spin on the facts and it spirals out of control in discussions like this one. It is a real game of broken telephone.
Ew, bootlicking hypocrisy and dishonesty in broad daylight. Nope!
You claim:
> This is disingenuous. The problem is not "filming" ICE agents.
Except here we have it from the dog-shooter’s mouth:
> Kristi Noem said, "Violence is anything that threatens them and their safety, so it is doxing them, it's videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations, encouraging other people to come […]
> Ew, bootlicking hypocrisy and dishonesty in broad daylight. Nope!
You can hold whatever opinion you like, but this kind of ad-hominem rhetoric is not acceptable on HN: "Be kind. Don't be snarky.… Edit out swipes.… When disagreeing, reply to the argument instead of calling names."
> Except here we have it
The disingenous thing is quoting Noem in the first place. I am not Noem and I do not purport to defend her statement. ProPublica seeks to distract from the obviously improper conduct of protesters and falsely imply that they are merely "filming". Practically every time there is video footage, though, we see protesters doing clearly unlawful things other than "filming" which they try to justify as "filming".
Same objection to rhetoric.
> And a five second google query yields
Same objection to rhetoric.
The fact that you can find such a link is irrelevant, insofar as I made a claim about what the ProPublica article evidences.
The USA Today link demonstrates the existence of one such case, assuming that we take an immigration lawyer at his word. It cites an academic paper to speculate that perhaps 1.5% of those deported are citizens, but there are numerous problems with this highly implausible suggestion:
* The paper does not give a 1.5% figure for deportations; it gives (page 632) a 1-1.5% range of wrongful apprehensions.
* The paper does not evidence the upper end of that range; the relevant figures (page 622) only support the lower end.
* The paper's actual estimate for citizens among those "who sign removal orders and are physically removed" is 0.05% (page 629). But even this does not have a clear basis in the preceding.
* The paper is from 2011 and based on data from years prior to that. As such, citing it only makes sense in the context of trying to delegitimize the concept of ICE in general; it has nothing to do with anything currently going on under Trump.
Similar observations apply to the GAO report. It covers Trump's first term; USA Today is curiously uninterested in investigating whether similar patterns continued under Biden. Of the 70 "potential US citizens" who were "removed" across a period of multiple years, several were not "deported" in any meaningful sense, and 24 had a prior history of immigration violations (and another 36 were convicted criminals). It's not established in the report that any of these "potential" citizens actually were citizens. And based on the table on page 24, even the 0.05% estimate is an order of magnitude too high, even if we take for granted that all 70 were citizens. (Similarly, less than 1 in 1000 arrests were of citizens, and that presumably includes a lot of protesters who were violating the law as part of a protest.)
> I would recommend you try and detach from your currently-held beliefs and re-evaluate these events through a more empathetic and constitutional lens.
My empathy is with legal immigrants whose efforts to be recognized by the system get invalidated when others violate the law to enter the country, and subsequently receive favourable treatment in "sanctuary cities". I am Canadian, but I respect the US Constitution; it gives the US — like Canada and any other country — the right to determine who is and is not legally permitted to reside within their borders. And the other branches of government are, a priori, obviously justified in seeking to enforce those rules, as they would otherwise be meaningless.
Your other links are again irrelevant here. They are just trying to add more random anecdotes of ICE impropriety, which are outside the scope of what I responded to.
The twins I had in mind when I wrote that were deported to Guatemala[1]. No, it's not okay to deport citizens and later return them. They were illegally arrested and held, then deported. (As you prepare to defend this, do note that the Trump-appointed US attorney has already said it was a bad deportation that should not have happened.)
I encourage you to read the article to the end, it's not very long. The core point you will see is that the illegal deportation was facilitated by ICE ignoring the Fifth Amendment as is its stated SOP. (This is another way of describing the policy of rapidly deporting people without due process.)
This gentleman born in Colorado was deported to Mexico[2] before being allowed to defend himself in a court. This is again a clear Constitutional violation that would not have happened had the required due process been provided.
I will pause here to point out that US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship, even if they "look foreign" or "sound foreign." Texas drivers' licenses do not prove citizenship; most Texans do not own a picture ID that will prove their citizenship. And if they did own such proof, they are still not required to carry it on their person, even if they do not "look like citizens."
If you think you know someone's citizenship status but have not personally seen their birth certificate or immigration documents, you are just engaging in bias.
Anyway, yes, citizens are deported. Many more are "detained" based on racial profiling that SCOTUS has endorsed. I've provided a couple of links, but if you don't trust these you can typically go to primary sources at e.g. DOJ in cases where citizens have won re-entry to their country.
I understand the deportation to their own countries, but deporting US citizens to random countries is something else. Not to mention all the court drama of proving you’re actually a citizen.
> “It looks dangerously like the construction of an internal spying agency,” said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who has written extensively on immigration agencies’ mass surveillance. “It’s a nightmare in the making.”
If you try to visualize this in action, replace economic migrants from Latin America with spies from China. And you quickly see there’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea.
That's a very leftist media view on the issues that actually concerned most on the right. Both sides used a lot of heavy strawman attacks and had a very distorted view of what the people actually wanted/cared about. In this case, it was unchecked migrants coming in at high rates with no good plan for integration- like if HR just started hiring a bunch of random people to your team with no onboarding process, and now you're on the hook for the new workload. The DEI and trans was just annoying because of how forced it was and how distracting from things that actually matter to most Americans.
> In this case, it was unchecked migrants coming in at high rates with no good plan for integration- like if HR just started hiring a bunch of random people to your team with no onboarding process, and now you're on the hook for the new workload.
Did this actually happen though? Friends/family in e.g. Texas/California are unconvinced, and I don't think I ever saw any real data versus just scaremongering ("they're eating our cats and dogs").
I found a source from 2024 that seems trustworthy. It comes to the conclusion that about 2.5 million were "released into the US", while an estimated 1.6 million snuck in. That's Feb 2021 to Oct 2023.
The details are complicated, and higher numbers seem to come from the fact that usually _encounters_ are counted, in the wild and at ports of entry, which includes millions of people who were turned around, many of whom will have tried and been encountered multiple times.
The source is extremely comprehensive and deep, way beyond what I wrote above.
That being said, the HR bit that you also quoted from GP is a bad analogy. It should be clear that immigration is quite different than onboarding new hires, something a country literally built on immigration like the US is a testament to.
Edit: As someone is mentioning elsewhere in the thread, let's not forget that during the Biden admin there was a bipartisan immigration and border security bill, including many provisions previously demanded by the Republicans, that got rejected in a turnaround by the Republicans in the end in the election year.
Yes, it's widely reported from both sides. Even people like Andrew on Channel5 covered people coming over in droves. I really don't know of anyone refuting it, just whether or not it's good or bad.
there has been a huge demographic shift in Texas it's not really debatable if the demographics are changing. non Hispanic whites were around 65 to 70 percent 50 years ago to about 37% now. Hispanic went from around 12% to around 40%
Yes (although only -13% white / +7% hispanic over the last 20 years isn't that big of a shift), but the demographic shift could also be explained by legal immigration (especially from Mexico), where Texas is one of the top destinations (alongside Florida and California).
yeah they may frame it as "uncontrolled migration" but given recent events like the Bo French tweet about Indian Americans, "uncontrolled migration" appears to be more of a euphemism for non-white people becoming more present in American society. Hence the desire to roll back a pluralistic democracy and install an ethnonationalist authoritarian that will privilege a certain class of people and punish others. This is at least the animus behind the MAGA core
As for swing voters, they really just wanted inflation to get under control. So they didn't even trade away their rights for DEI or migration control, just inflation. A bit disconcerting to see that people will so easily give away the very rights that people fought decades to have.
>In this case, it was unchecked migrants coming in at high rates with no good plan for integration
Theis issue with conservatives isn't the policy you believe in, the issue is that you are just so unbelievably ignorant of how the world works, to where you see an issue like migrants coming in, and think that its such a big problem that the best course of action is giving a flamethrower to a convicted felon rapist and likely a pedo (all the things you supposedly firmly stand against), and trusting him to burn just the right parts down with authoritative force (something you are also supposedly firmly against)
Furthermore, if you bothered to actually care, you would have paid attention, Dems completely would agree with you that undocumented migrants were a problem - Biden had a border bill that was bipartisan, supported by border patrol, that would have allocated all the correct funding to reign in the asylum process, which would have correctly filtered the people that were coming here to work, versus those taking advantage of the system. And consequently, Trump told the Republicans to vote against that bill because it would hurt his chances of getting elected.
So for people like you, it was never about the migrants - you don't actually care. It was always about racism and sexism. At least there isn't any questions about it anymore.
Sheesh, you claim to know so much about me (so incorrectly) that I doubt the veracity of any of your claims. Why do you want so bad for me to be racist and sexist? Do I have to be in order to fit your world view?
You don't have to believe me. You can go look at the bill, and have your favorite LLM parse it. There is public records of Republicans saying Trump instructed them to oppose it. All of this is verifiable.
In the same way, you can also go look at the public transcript of the Trump Jan 6 court hearing, where Trump did not deny anything he did, like putting the election counts into question, organizing a rally with very energizing language, sitting and watching people storm the Capitol hoping that the certification will be delayed with the chaos, while others are begging him to go on record and call it off - he admitted to everything, with his only claim being that as the sitting President, its with his right to do this in official capacity with immunity. I.e the worst possible example of authoritarian rule that you conservatives are so seemingly scared of, but you still vote for him because apparently all of that is justified as long as there is less brown people in US.
The fact that you haven't done so and instead are automatically are going on defense saying my claims are invalidated pretty much proves everything I said about you.
Keep people in “system 1” thinking to control them. Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up, it’s clear that although these fault lines always existed in US society, fringe opinions have been massively signal-boosted by bots for quite some time. I suspect there’s been a psychological Cold War going on online for at least the last decade or two, with a whole ecosystem of grifters and ragebait view farmers bottom-feeding off of state sponsored PsyOps, leading a corrupt inner circle of elite opportunists to take advantage of the resulting anger for personal gain. We’ll probably never get to tease apart what was a natural side effect of social media and what was engineered deliberately but I bet the story would be every bit as fascinating as the Manhattan project.
Not 'outsiders', russians. They never stopped viewing US as mortal enemy, maybe lowered this a bit during Yeltsin but that paranoid fuck puttin' started quiet war against whole west from Day 1 in tye office.
Many times within EU russian 'diplomats' were caught giving pesky bribes to weak bureaucrats (ie 500 euro for some state secrets)
> Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up
Forgive me, but hacker news is the only social media I participate in. Is this a pretty commonly held sentiment? Like are other social media users commenting on this trend? Any news articles? Thanks
If you oppose them, it'd be good to understand them instead of being shocked about straw men. If you'd like to understand them, it's very easy to find their media and thought leaders sharing eg. demographic data. "Remigration" is the key term, now.
Their media and thought leaders basically exclusively say stupid stuff. If we listen to them, the only conclusion we can come to is… they’re stupid.
Trump is the prime example. If we want an accurate impression of what trump and his supporters believe, we should listen to trump right? Well Trump basically only says batshit stuff, so that doesn’t work.
Look what the Europeans did from their antisemitism in the 1940s. We need to criminalize hate politics like we've banned other antisocial behaviors such as assault and rape. This just feels so obvious to me. Political hatemongering isn't some mystifying slippery ghost.
Ironically, the right-wing has been the most vocal in pushing for criminalizing anti-semitism as of late, largely to curtail pro-Palestinian protesting.
But let me guess, that'd be bad because you meant "criminalization of speech I don't agree with", not "criminalization of 'hate speech'".
Being on the side of human rights watch, amnesty international, doctors without borders, the red cross, oxfam, and the un about the classification of a war strategy isn't antisemitism
People with Nazi tattoos who make songs called heil hitler and chanting "Jews will not replace us" on the far right passing around protocols of the elders of Zion calling human rights watch "the actual antisemites" doesn't make it so.
Words have meaning and lying criminal hate mongering scam artists who are viscerally and proudly antisemitic slandering human rights organizations is the disgusting thing I'm talking about.
They don't need to, because the US has a finely honed system of railroading.
They push captured migrants through the system to deportation via a "rocket docket" and our rubber stamp justice system.
The system being discussed simply allows them to lay their hands on more migrants to feed that existing quick deportation pipeline.
It's worse than disappearing people. Disappearing people implies they need to hide what they're doing from an objectionable public. Clearly, the people currently in power are blessed with a constituency they don't need to hide from.
So I want to be clear that I don't like how we do that, but the problem is that if your single metric is "I want fewer humanitarian migrants" then the plan is working. It's the disconnect between people who want that and don't care about the migrants themselves, and the people who either want that but do care) or don't want that and care that's driving all of this.
It's also really unhelpful to act like deportation under any* circumstances is WORSE than enforced disappearance, which generally involves murder and anonymous disposal of remains. I don't like how we're treating migrants and I believe that immigration is one of our greatest advantages over countries that reject it. I can still maintain enough objectivity to tell the difference between disgustingly harsh "push vs pull" tactics and organized mass murder.
People doing illegal things is the problem. Change the law if you think it's wrong but it's the executive branch's duty to enforce the law.
You can't sit back here and be upset that Trump decides to selectively enforce the law in the ways he sees fit while approving of the exact behavior when there's a different executive.
This is why the problem of executive power exists, people only care when they disagree and actively approve when they agree.
Nope, I can distinguish between what is right and "wrong" without arbitrary laws decided by <1k corrupt politicians (Ds and Rs).
I dont make judgements about what a problem is based on whether a law says it is. You should be experiencing the world outside the framework of imaginerary legal constructs.
If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense and goodness, maybe its the problem. Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
I think you've misjudged me, I think Biden, and Trump should be sharing the same jail cell. I dont approve of basically any US politician, they're all morally corrupt and outright evil.
> If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense
That isn't the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is we have certain laws that, under some administrations, are barely enforced. Then, under another administration, there are a large group of people who have been flouting the law because it wasn't being enforced.
You've now created huge class of people who have very tenous legal status, based on the whims of the executive. That's the problem.
US immigration laws are some of the most relaxed in the world. There's plenty of debate on whether that should change or not (and how). But circumventing the legislative process might make you feel good about the immediate problem but it creates a side effect of having an underclass of non-citizens that live under constant threat of deportation and have limited access to social programs.
The only judgement I've made of you is that you seem to think not enforcing the law based on personal feelings is right and you've only confirmed that.
In a democracy, the law isn't just some words on papers, it represents the collective moral judgement of the voting population. It is inherently antithetical to democracy to ignore laws you don't agree with.
> Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
Pretty ironic considering this entire situation is caused by people ignoring the system rather than patching it.
I'd rather my tax money wasted on get US people watched and silenced, than bombing schools and killing children in Middle East.
I mean if I can choose, I want my tax money spent on making Americans healthier, but I don't get to choose. ICE has $70B to spend, this is just 1/700. I'm sure they will do more before next congress trying to crawl back their money.
I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. It’s not a case of having to choose between the lesser of evils, it’s a case of having some principles and making decisions based on them.
It's the same forces doing the bombing and the spying. Want to object to Israel/the US murdering a school full of girls? Guess what, now you've got a Palantir tag on you. Push hard enough and maybe Bill Ackman will jump on Twitter and get you blacklisted.
No one spoke out when the government started abducting US citizens (who happened to be brown) off the street and killing them in detention centers or putting them on deportation planes to random countries without any due process. This is just the next logical step of the program. All authoritarian governments handle dissidents in this way.
I mean, it's cliche but vote! Use your right to vote and vote in people who will hold those who abuse their power accountable.
If everyone who was allowed to vote actually voted, I think there's a reasonably high chance we'd have better politicians. As it stands, there's this pretend "virtue" from a bunch of pseudo-intellectual morons who think they're cool by abstaining from their right to vote, and dedicate a lot of time trying to convince people that their votes don't matter.
Cynicism is always tempting but ultimately lazy; if they votes didn't matter then there wouldn't be politicians wasting their time trying to make it hard or impossible for you to vote.
When the government is shooting citizens in the face, disenfranchising voters, dismantling election committees, and encouraging militant groups to show up to polling places and intimidate vote counters, all while claiming every election they've been a part of was rigged against them, it's natural for people to look outside of voting to make an impact.
I will be voting, like I always have, but I live in a state where that's easy to do. This administration is testing the limits of what people will put up with.
And what did you do about it? Probably the same as the rest of us.. nothing that actually matters.
We have no power except a vote. Our country is too big (physically) to effectively protest. Our wealth distribution is too large. Our social safety nets are laughable. People can't even take time off work to protest, or if they just didn't show up they can be fired without recourse.
Our country and government is basically built for the people having no actual power. We are at the mercy of the ultra rich that control everything and a large majority of all of our "elected" officials.
yes, people spoke out, but i take your point. a lot of people seemed cool with it or were even excited for it when they thought it wouldn't effect them, but obviously, if they could get away with it with a subset of the population, that subset would only grow.
It's hard to say exactly how many because ICE isn't keeping records precisely to make it easier to hide their captives. There are more than a few reports of midnight flights around the country with lawyers being unable to contact their clients.
But for just a taste, here's a propublica article on the matter.
> No US citizens have been detained after evidence of their citizenship has been produced, which is a fast process in practice (taking a few hours)
This is a great place to point out that US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American" or "sound American."
Many/most US citizens do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Most citizen children do not own a picture ID at all. Some citizen children cannot carry anything, because they are infants. None of them are required to produce proof of citizenship on demand, even if they are brown.
> which is a fast process in practice (taking a few hours)
I'm going to come back to this. This is absolutely absurd in context. We are talking about US citizens being arrested by secret police who have no jurisdiction over US citizens not at or near (per law) a border or port. And you're suggesting it's okay for them to be abducted at random, as long as it's only a half workday or whatever?
Please, I beg of you. Read the Constitution. Think seriously about what it means. The words are all simple. The prose is accessible. Did the people who wrote this have in mind secret police abducting citizens? Is that Liberty?
Anyway, answers to some of your questions are in this database[1]. In general, there is no judicial review as ICE has as stated SOP to move faster than the courts, which is to say to ignore the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Yes, US citizens have been deported by ICE. Your favorite search engine can provide names of US citizens killed by ICE.
If this administration was even half as fascist as they claimed it was, they obviously wouldn't be able to make such comments publicly, but such a fact is lost on them.
Warrantless surveillance already exists in the US for monitoring cleared people and those with adjacency. Everything you can imagine them doing is being done. They already have the collection methods running and just need authorization to expand the scope.
YCombinator and their lackies in Big Tech have promoted these types of abuses to occur. The comment section here will be filled with people who lack any substance but will gladly provide lip service. The stories of the modern day Gestapo cannot be told without Silicon Valley.
Just a reminder, all of this could have been avoided by simply voting Democrat. Not because you necessarily agree with everything that Democrats are doing, but because at their worst they are 100 times better than Republicans at their best.
NSA has a culture of at least sort of following the laws that govern them. This needs to be ICE to land with people who will happily ignore court orders.
Genuine answer: His admin is not doing enough, fast enough. The only scary thing is what happens if they don't dismantle internationalist oligarchs this term. They will come back with a vengeance.
You think this domestic spy program will help dismantle "internationalist oligarchs"? Can you explain who those people are, and how this program will further that goal?
I see you willfully ignored my second question. Let me guess, the boogiemen you're referring to includes the ones eating the cats and dogs, but excludes the ones eating the babies?
An international oligarch is an extremely wealthy and powerful business figure or tycoon who uses massive financial resources to exercise political, economic, or social influence across national borders.
Dont expect answer form one, not here since reactions would be predictable.
They are getting warm and fuzzy in their echo chambers and unfiltered reality rarely comes to them.
I wish I had some solution, but apart from having Thanos glove and with a snap increase IQ of lower 50% of the population by 30 points, or similarly bioengineered nano virus, I dont.
I've tried numerous times to penetrate this membrane of dumb emotional shit but its all negative emotions and insecurities down the hole, us-vs-them and similar, no facts, just trivial to abuse shit. Good moral honest guys always had it much harder there than manipulating sociopaths.
Remember those horrible vicious ni… I mean Haitians in Springfield? The ones who are "poisoning the blood of the country", "probably have AIDS", and are "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats"?
They were legal, every last one of them. They were under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There was no "law and order" justification to object to their presence. Didn't stop the GOP from going after them. Trump and Vance viciously attacked them with the full support of the conservative media. The administration repealed their TPS protection, turning people who had done no wrong into fugitives.
This is about race. Always has been. When they run out of "illegals", they'll turn people into "illegals". When they run out of immigrants entirely, they'll overturn the 14th Amendment and start stripping citizenship from native-born Americans of the wrong color. They've already tried just that, and three motherfuckers on the Supreme Court voted to let them.
what's the problem with ending a temporary protection status? it's supposed to be temporary it's in the name, unless I'm mistaken that program started 16 years ago that seems way past temporary.
The name for TPS is not the program is temporary, rather the protection itself is temporary protection (hurr durr) until either the person can return home or seek other means of legal status.
After 16 years why wouldn't they be able to return home? The protection was given due to an earthquake how long are we supposed to allow temporary protections to last?
Nobody has been in TPS for 16 years. The idea of TPS is that you can be provided with the ability to work and pull yourself up by the bootstraps then eventually transition into a more long-term status.
The protection was given due to an earthquake it's been 16 years that crisis is over there is nothing racist about sending people home after the crisis we sheltered them for is over.
No, the racist part is the racism. You’re attributing rational reasoning to the racists. You don’t have to do that - they’ve already explicitly stated they are racist. So, we should take them at their word.
Yes, I’m sure we could make up plenty of rational-sounding reasons why we should deport some people. Trump is not doing that, though. He’s doing it because he’s racist, and he certainly doesn’t need the likes of you trying to make him sound sane.
There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.
They were given protection status do to an earthquake it's been 16 years it seems rational to return them home. What would be a fair reason to end this temporary status to you?
I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?
Everyone can be stripped off their citizenship now that birthright is debatable (Supreme Court upheld with a narrow 6-3). At which point they are illegals.
The infra we are building for our future dictator is awesome.
Anyone cheering for this fail to realize that these kinds of programs never ever go away. Even if their budget is restricted by a future congress, some forms of this will remain. Also, political changes occur every 4-8 years. Sooner or later, the other side will control the same levers. Instead of targeting immigration, it could be used to target a community/ideology/group of individuals you align with.
Nonsense. This administration erased entire programs with the stroke of a pen. A future administration could do the same. Everything this administration has done can be unraveled.
look at the longevity of the Patriot Act - once in place ("because of X!") it's extremely difficult to kill as all kinds of forces work against killing it and it's easy to scare the public about "what will happen if it's not there"
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
(un)fun fact, Deloitte currently staffs what looks like a smaller version of this contract, that this may be intended to replace based on the timing. Example, award ID 70CDCR21FR0000022 on USAspending.gov
253 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 75.4 ms ] threadShould the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?
Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications I have with other citizens? Why?
Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.
US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
1 - https://projects.propublica.org/american-citizens-detained-d...
But lets be clear - its US public that allowed this, over and over. Saner candidates were suppressed as not patriotic enough, entire worse than pointless wars were waged and millions died for nothing. Not US passport holders so I guess thats just an afterthought.
Dont expect rollback in your lifetime. We havent reached even the bottom yet, not with current voting mindset. Still this is what US population wants, I don't see >200 millions even just protesting.
https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-bill-abolish-ice-shut-do...
Ya, I am a fan of the coast guard... and I think we need the FAA/TSA to keep the planes running on time. And FEMA might be laughed at in some quarters but a federal disaster response is something we should have ahead of hurricane season.
You should rethink your position as it's not going to give you the electoral wins you think it will.
This part always pisses them off for some reason and any conversations around this cannot be had in a civil manner here without suppression. It's a real insult to people who spent years, sometimes decades, coming into a country legally.
The reason this "pisses" freedom loving people off is we're sick of hearing your talking points repeated as if they have any bearing on the argument whatsoever, while you continue to gleefully talk past the actual criticism of how our country is being destroyed.
A bunch of people crossing a border illegally can't destroy a country - just like how some planes being flown into office towers can't either. However, throwing our rights, values, and institutions in the trash as a "response" does.
But, I am not drawing a parallel for justification, here. Both can be wrong at the same time.
If you earnestly do take issue with both while correctly prioritizing them, I'm sorry that the fascists have poisoned the well on your immigration issue and burnt up its political capital.
I'm ambivalent about immigration myself, but suffer the exact same shitty dynamic from felon musk (et al) waxing dishonestly about individual liberty. Now when I make arguments in support of individual liberty, I need to include much more nuance and disclaiming to distance myself from the fascists' talking points, lest what I say be taken in support of their disingenuous rallying lies.
You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their family do. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's HQ for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.
That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.
Homeless people EVERWHERE doing the Fent lean, with no effective programs to fix the issues in sight. Ever increasing amounts of people that don't even speak the language, let alone participate in the culture. Don't forget the trash and filth everywhere, and boarded-up shops and housing.
I've been to multiple cities and suburbs on the west and east coast, in the midwest, and the south, and they all have these issues to varying degrees.
At a certain point, you have to ask yourself legitimately: What is the difference between walking outside in the US and some country like Afghanistan? The difference is becoming increasingly narrower.
Disorder, drug use and homelessness aren't problems caused by immigrants, documented or undocumented.
Immigrants (even the undocumented ones) pay more in taxes, receive fewer public benefits, commit less crime, are less likely to be homeless, and more likely to have a job than natives. The differences are small in most of these cases, but its enough to put down these meritless, racist tropes.
And across the spectrum, from low to high skill, documented to undocumented, on net, immigrants contribute positively to the economy and fuel growth
If you wanted to deliberately exacerbate all those social disorder issues you claim to care about a good place to start would be mass deportation
This is a huge, wealthy country. There's plenty of room and economic opportunity. The undocumented are not the problem. They're scape goated.
But even setting all that aside, ICE and DHS need fundamental reform, so might as well abolish them and create new agencies with all new employees.
But, right wing must always lie.
This statistic is completely false. But you can use is as a good credibility filter. Media figures and politicians who make this claim are liars - stop believing what they say. You'll become much more well informed overnight.
An estimated 2-2.5 million immigrants were allowed to reside in the US as immigration cases were pending. Most came through ports of entry, some crossed "illegally" (a misdemeanor).
There were an estimated ~9 million apprehensions. This is the number they cite to mislead you. Apprehensions does not mean 9 million unique people, nor does it mean they all now reside in the US.
Most of those people were deported or ejected. And most of those were actually the same people trying to cross multiple times. An unintended consequence of Title 42 (the covid restrictions imposed during Trump term) was an explosion in repeat crossing attempts.
Formal deportation makes it a felony to return. Under Title 42 though people were just ejected without formal deportation and could try again without consequence. Cartels/Smugglers even started selling packages that involved multiple tries to cross the border.
The most common variant of the "abolish DHS" opinion simply holds that this re-org was unsuccessful and should be reverted.
The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.
ie: 25 years of Patriot Act renewal, Flock rollouts in liberal cities, Obama’s pursuit of Snowden and not the NSA itself
There is certainly liberal leadership concerned with our rights, just as there are conservatives, but they are the minority under both partisan umbrellas.
So let's not conflate the two, ok?
The really weird thing is, how people/journalists don't seem to untangle who's behind them. Or what their actual game is.
The perceived tail is wagging with the dog and the echo chamber on the left believes it to be just another craziness.
It's a luxury when nobody takes you seriously, you get away with the most incredible stuff.
we've known this forever
turns out nobody cares as long as gas is cheap
That's what I'm talking about: people have no clue, but presume they did anyway.
Look at who actually benefits from Trumpism.
Pinning it on this or that billionaire is simplistic at best. You have to actually look at what's happening on the right, not just parrot tropes.
Until that's true, the 2nd amendment is meaningless when USAF can buy JDAMs and F35s and I, an American citizen, cannot.
Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?
Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.
Still I think we’re saying the same thing: the founder’s arguments amount well regulated militias being a check on tyrannical government doesn’t land when the tyrannical government can just drone swarm the country into submission.
I'm not sure this is accurate. General Benjamin Butler bought and used private gatling guns. JP Morgan loaned a warship to the Navy. I am sure there are many other examples. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/h...
That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.
Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.
...what?
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
" Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works. "
I'm not giving political analysis, retard. But you are clearly so smart and clever. Tell us all about the 'Snowden reporting' that president Obama personally proposed and executed. Not sure why he is reporting on himself but mister user seven numbers is sure to be a source of truth
They funded and instrumented it. “Go off king”? Are we 14 year olds on TikTok here?
You sound very angry, guess I got a little too close to home. The lady doth protest too much.
A DOJ with its ducks in a row would be charging this left and right.
Also, with this administration, if you didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't' somewhere in your paperwork, citizenship can be revoked.
Basically, if they catch you in any kind of lie. It's fraud.
Could be ex post facto and seemingly innocuous act unconnected to paperwork as well. You came in. Applied for asylum. Went through the process. And, finally, you were naturalized.
Only you traveled back to your hometown in your country of origin at some point. Before or after naturalization.
Boom.
They got you. That's fraud.
Everyone needs to stay extra careful going forward.
Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.
Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?
* The US passport lists your place of birth, barring you from entry into certain other countries, if you were born in countries they don't agree with.
* Your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported as we discussed above.
* You cannot be elected to certain offices.
This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?
There really should be a time limit on revocation.
re: offices, it's just President & VP that are (Constitutionally) off the table, right?
The fraud a migrant may have committed, should the US be able to prove it, is lying on their asylum request when they said they would be, for instance, killed if they ever go back to their country of origin.
Obviously if you show up at your country of origin with a US passport asking to be let in, it casts serious doubt as to the veracity of the assertion that you will be killed if you ever go back to your country of origin.
Here's the thing, the US has to prove it. Which previous administrations never bothered to go to the trouble of doing. However, this administration is pouring over travel records, airline passenger manifests, cell phone and text message data, etc etc. They've taken to pursuing these cases.
All that to say this, now is not the time to believe there is some legal trickety-trick you can use to get around these issues. Your passport would mean nothing in the case that the Trump-Vance MAGA boys prove fraud, because you would have been shown to have used fraudulent statements to attain that passport.
So to any immigrants out there, please, please, please, don't play games with these people. Because they are not playing games with you. Be very careful to keep your story, (the one you told immigration), and your actions consistent. At minimum until such time as Trump leaves office. But in my opinion, you should probably just strive for consistency from here on out. Because MAGA can be elected back into power at any time convenient even if they lose the next few elections.
And if they get elected again, when they come back, you can bet everything you own that they will be digging through that data from the time they were out of power.
US citizens cannot be deported.
Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.
Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.
US citizens cannot be deported.
(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)
The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)
* https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship
More context:
* https://vertexlegal.org/what-causes-american-citizen-lose-ci...
Since he is the face of the Republican party, voters understand they are evaluating his decisions and performance since 2024, and will be voting accordingly.
"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.
There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.
> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization
You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.
In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.
You know what's funny, everything you said is valid, but, I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums. It's actually the opposite. Somehow spying is ok if they like the company.
A lot of users here have vocally admitted that having Flock cameras was okay because they were a HOA member and it gave them security of some sort and they had "nothing to hide"
Another example was Anthropic getting caught stenographically marking requests[1] and Anthropic's response when they got caught was simply "it was just an experiment" and everyone on here said it's okay.
> Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
I wish we asked this question to all our favorite tech companies too, this being a tech forum and all.
[1] https://thereallo.dev/blog/claude-code-prompt-steganography
Your source does not establish this. "arresting" and "detaining" objectively do not mean the same thing; and the detentions described are clearly based on a good-faith belief that the subject either is not legally permitted to be in the country or is unlawfully interfering with immigration enforcement.
Where citizens have been arrested, it is not for "immigration charges" at all, but for obstruction of justice. These arrests are based on more than "probable cause"; they based on it literally observably happening right in front of the officers.
The law empowers them to make arrests in these cases, in exactly the same way that ordinary city cops are empowered to arrest people who disobey lawful orders, attempt to flee from detention, attempt to physically intervene in the arrest of someone else, etc. This is exactly as expected, because they are legally recognized as federal LEO.
The spin in this article is incredible:
> Top DHS officials, including former Secretary Kristi Noem, went further, claiming that filming ICE agents was interfering with arrests.
This is disingenuous. The problem is not "filming" ICE agents. The problem is standing in places that physically obstruct the act of arrest while holding up your cell phone. It's notable how, in videos of contentious incidents, we commonly see many people recording on cell phones in responsible ways, who are completely left alone.
Moving on:
> Some US citizens have been deported.
No; at most they evidence that people claiming to be citizens have been deported.
Your source does not name a single person who a) they can prove to be a US citizen on publicly available information and b) has been deported.
> but ICE has supralegal powers.
No, they do not. Their powers are enumerated in statute, in particular 8 USC 1357.
ProPublica is putting an obvious spin on the facts and it spirals out of control in discussions like this one. It is a real game of broken telephone.
You claim:
> This is disingenuous. The problem is not "filming" ICE agents.
Except here we have it from the dog-shooter’s mouth:
> Kristi Noem said, "Violence is anything that threatens them and their safety, so it is doxing them, it's videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations, encouraging other people to come […]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-administration-say...
Moving on. You claim:
> No; at most they evidence that people claiming to be citizens have been deported.
And a five second google query yields:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/09/06/us-cit...
I would recommend you try and detach from your currently-held beliefs and re-evaluate these events through a more empathetic and constitutional lens.
Charges dropped against protestor once video footage emerged of arrest:
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/12/assault-charge-dism...
Unprovoked excessive force against a veteran at an ICE protest:
https://www.kptv.com/2025/08/28/portland-man-sues-dhs-after-...
You can hold whatever opinion you like, but this kind of ad-hominem rhetoric is not acceptable on HN: "Be kind. Don't be snarky.… Edit out swipes.… When disagreeing, reply to the argument instead of calling names."
> Except here we have it
The disingenous thing is quoting Noem in the first place. I am not Noem and I do not purport to defend her statement. ProPublica seeks to distract from the obviously improper conduct of protesters and falsely imply that they are merely "filming". Practically every time there is video footage, though, we see protesters doing clearly unlawful things other than "filming" which they try to justify as "filming".
Same objection to rhetoric.
> And a five second google query yields
Same objection to rhetoric.
The fact that you can find such a link is irrelevant, insofar as I made a claim about what the ProPublica article evidences.
The USA Today link demonstrates the existence of one such case, assuming that we take an immigration lawyer at his word. It cites an academic paper to speculate that perhaps 1.5% of those deported are citizens, but there are numerous problems with this highly implausible suggestion:
* The paper does not give a 1.5% figure for deportations; it gives (page 632) a 1-1.5% range of wrongful apprehensions.
* The paper does not evidence the upper end of that range; the relevant figures (page 622) only support the lower end.
* The paper's actual estimate for citizens among those "who sign removal orders and are physically removed" is 0.05% (page 629). But even this does not have a clear basis in the preceding.
* The paper is from 2011 and based on data from years prior to that. As such, citing it only makes sense in the context of trying to delegitimize the concept of ICE in general; it has nothing to do with anything currently going on under Trump.
Similar observations apply to the GAO report. It covers Trump's first term; USA Today is curiously uninterested in investigating whether similar patterns continued under Biden. Of the 70 "potential US citizens" who were "removed" across a period of multiple years, several were not "deported" in any meaningful sense, and 24 had a prior history of immigration violations (and another 36 were convicted criminals). It's not established in the report that any of these "potential" citizens actually were citizens. And based on the table on page 24, even the 0.05% estimate is an order of magnitude too high, even if we take for granted that all 70 were citizens. (Similarly, less than 1 in 1000 arrests were of citizens, and that presumably includes a lot of protesters who were violating the law as part of a protest.)
> I would recommend you try and detach from your currently-held beliefs and re-evaluate these events through a more empathetic and constitutional lens.
My empathy is with legal immigrants whose efforts to be recognized by the system get invalidated when others violate the law to enter the country, and subsequently receive favourable treatment in "sanctuary cities". I am Canadian, but I respect the US Constitution; it gives the US — like Canada and any other country — the right to determine who is and is not legally permitted to reside within their borders. And the other branches of government are, a priori, obviously justified in seeking to enforce those rules, as they would otherwise be meaningless.
Your other links are again irrelevant here. They are just trying to add more random anecdotes of ICE impropriety, which are outside the scope of what I responded to.
"My empathy is with legal immigrants [...]"
Sure, pal. And Kristi Noem is empathetic towards family pets. Good luck out there!
Where were they deported to?
I encourage you to read the article to the end, it's not very long. The core point you will see is that the illegal deportation was facilitated by ICE ignoring the Fifth Amendment as is its stated SOP. (This is another way of describing the policy of rapidly deporting people without due process.)
This gentleman born in Colorado was deported to Mexico[2] before being allowed to defend himself in a court. This is again a clear Constitutional violation that would not have happened had the required due process been provided.
I will pause here to point out that US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship, even if they "look foreign" or "sound foreign." Texas drivers' licenses do not prove citizenship; most Texans do not own a picture ID that will prove their citizenship. And if they did own such proof, they are still not required to carry it on their person, even if they do not "look like citizens."
If you think you know someone's citizenship status but have not personally seen their birth certificate or immigration documents, you are just engaging in bias.
Anyway, yes, citizens are deported. Many more are "detained" based on racial profiling that SCOTUS has endorsed. I've provided a couple of links, but if you don't trust these you can typically go to primary sources at e.g. DOJ in cases where citizens have won re-entry to their country.
1 - https://www.newsweek.com/ice-deported-two-us-citizen-childre...
2 - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/30/texas-us-citizen-dep...
I understand the deportation to their own countries, but deporting US citizens to random countries is something else. Not to mention all the court drama of proving you’re actually a citizen.
If you try to visualize this in action, replace economic migrants from Latin America with spies from China. And you quickly see there’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea.
If you try to visualize this in action, replace somebody with a bad guy. And you quickly see there’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea.
Did this actually happen though? Friends/family in e.g. Texas/California are unconvinced, and I don't think I ever saw any real data versus just scaremongering ("they're eating our cats and dogs").
The details are complicated, and higher numbers seem to come from the fact that usually _encounters_ are counted, in the wild and at ports of entry, which includes millions of people who were turned around, many of whom will have tried and been encountered multiple times.
The source is extremely comprehensive and deep, way beyond what I wrote above.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigrat...
That being said, the HR bit that you also quoted from GP is a bad analogy. It should be clear that immigration is quite different than onboarding new hires, something a country literally built on immigration like the US is a testament to.
Edit: As someone is mentioning elsewhere in the thread, let's not forget that during the Biden admin there was a bipartisan immigration and border security bill, including many provisions previously demanded by the Republicans, that got rejected in a turnaround by the Republicans in the end in the election year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas
As for swing voters, they really just wanted inflation to get under control. So they didn't even trade away their rights for DEI or migration control, just inflation. A bit disconcerting to see that people will so easily give away the very rights that people fought decades to have.
Theis issue with conservatives isn't the policy you believe in, the issue is that you are just so unbelievably ignorant of how the world works, to where you see an issue like migrants coming in, and think that its such a big problem that the best course of action is giving a flamethrower to a convicted felon rapist and likely a pedo (all the things you supposedly firmly stand against), and trusting him to burn just the right parts down with authoritative force (something you are also supposedly firmly against)
Furthermore, if you bothered to actually care, you would have paid attention, Dems completely would agree with you that undocumented migrants were a problem - Biden had a border bill that was bipartisan, supported by border patrol, that would have allocated all the correct funding to reign in the asylum process, which would have correctly filtered the people that were coming here to work, versus those taking advantage of the system. And consequently, Trump told the Republicans to vote against that bill because it would hurt his chances of getting elected.
So for people like you, it was never about the migrants - you don't actually care. It was always about racism and sexism. At least there isn't any questions about it anymore.
In the same way, you can also go look at the public transcript of the Trump Jan 6 court hearing, where Trump did not deny anything he did, like putting the election counts into question, organizing a rally with very energizing language, sitting and watching people storm the Capitol hoping that the certification will be delayed with the chaos, while others are begging him to go on record and call it off - he admitted to everything, with his only claim being that as the sitting President, its with his right to do this in official capacity with immunity. I.e the worst possible example of authoritarian rule that you conservatives are so seemingly scared of, but you still vote for him because apparently all of that is justified as long as there is less brown people in US.
The fact that you haven't done so and instead are automatically are going on defense saying my claims are invalidated pretty much proves everything I said about you.
Many times within EU russian 'diplomats' were caught giving pesky bribes to weak bureaucrats (ie 500 euro for some state secrets)
Forgive me, but hacker news is the only social media I participate in. Is this a pretty commonly held sentiment? Like are other social media users commenting on this trend? Any news articles? Thanks
You can't really understand a hypocrite by taking their public utterances at face value.
Trump is the prime example. If we want an accurate impression of what trump and his supporters believe, we should listen to trump right? Well Trump basically only says batshit stuff, so that doesn’t work.
Never underestimate how much most Americans will gladly shit on their freedoms if they're told it will hurt someone slightly different than them.
But let me guess, that'd be bad because you meant "criminalization of speech I don't agree with", not "criminalization of 'hate speech'".
People with Nazi tattoos who make songs called heil hitler and chanting "Jews will not replace us" on the far right passing around protocols of the elders of Zion calling human rights watch "the actual antisemites" doesn't make it so.
Words have meaning and lying criminal hate mongering scam artists who are viscerally and proudly antisemitic slandering human rights organizations is the disgusting thing I'm talking about.
I'm sure Trump has had plenty of input from Putin about all this. Even if he's not formally an "asset", it's more a case of shared goals.
They don't need to, because the US has a finely honed system of railroading.
They push captured migrants through the system to deportation via a "rocket docket" and our rubber stamp justice system.
The system being discussed simply allows them to lay their hands on more migrants to feed that existing quick deportation pipeline.
It's worse than disappearing people. Disappearing people implies they need to hide what they're doing from an objectionable public. Clearly, the people currently in power are blessed with a constituency they don't need to hide from.
It's also really unhelpful to act like deportation under any* circumstances is WORSE than enforced disappearance, which generally involves murder and anonymous disposal of remains. I don't like how we're treating migrants and I believe that immigration is one of our greatest advantages over countries that reject it. I can still maintain enough objectivity to tell the difference between disgustingly harsh "push vs pull" tactics and organized mass murder.
You can't sit back here and be upset that Trump decides to selectively enforce the law in the ways he sees fit while approving of the exact behavior when there's a different executive.
This is why the problem of executive power exists, people only care when they disagree and actively approve when they agree.
I dont make judgements about what a problem is based on whether a law says it is. You should be experiencing the world outside the framework of imaginerary legal constructs.
If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense and goodness, maybe its the problem. Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
I think you've misjudged me, I think Biden, and Trump should be sharing the same jail cell. I dont approve of basically any US politician, they're all morally corrupt and outright evil.
That isn't the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is we have certain laws that, under some administrations, are barely enforced. Then, under another administration, there are a large group of people who have been flouting the law because it wasn't being enforced.
You've now created huge class of people who have very tenous legal status, based on the whims of the executive. That's the problem.
US immigration laws are some of the most relaxed in the world. There's plenty of debate on whether that should change or not (and how). But circumventing the legislative process might make you feel good about the immediate problem but it creates a side effect of having an underclass of non-citizens that live under constant threat of deportation and have limited access to social programs.
The only judgement I've made of you is that you seem to think not enforcing the law based on personal feelings is right and you've only confirmed that.
In a democracy, the law isn't just some words on papers, it represents the collective moral judgement of the voting population. It is inherently antithetical to democracy to ignore laws you don't agree with.
> Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
Pretty ironic considering this entire situation is caused by people ignoring the system rather than patching it.
I mean if I can choose, I want my tax money spent on making Americans healthier, but I don't get to choose. ICE has $70B to spend, this is just 1/700. I'm sure they will do more before next congress trying to crawl back their money.
You can say no.
If everyone who was allowed to vote actually voted, I think there's a reasonably high chance we'd have better politicians. As it stands, there's this pretend "virtue" from a bunch of pseudo-intellectual morons who think they're cool by abstaining from their right to vote, and dedicate a lot of time trying to convince people that their votes don't matter.
Cynicism is always tempting but ultimately lazy; if they votes didn't matter then there wouldn't be politicians wasting their time trying to make it hard or impossible for you to vote.
I will be voting, like I always have, but I live in a state where that's easy to do. This administration is testing the limits of what people will put up with.
And what did you do about it? Probably the same as the rest of us.. nothing that actually matters.
We have no power except a vote. Our country is too big (physically) to effectively protest. Our wealth distribution is too large. Our social safety nets are laughable. People can't even take time off work to protest, or if they just didn't show up they can be fired without recourse.
Our country and government is basically built for the people having no actual power. We are at the mercy of the ultra rich that control everything and a large majority of all of our "elected" officials.
* Which US citizens have been abducted and by who? Which have been killed?
* Which US citizens found themselves in US detention centers (without lawful arrest) ?
* Which US citizens were placed in other countries without judicial review?
But for just a taste, here's a propublica article on the matter.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...
This is a great place to point out that US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American" or "sound American."
Many/most US citizens do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Most citizen children do not own a picture ID at all. Some citizen children cannot carry anything, because they are infants. None of them are required to produce proof of citizenship on demand, even if they are brown.
> which is a fast process in practice (taking a few hours)
I'm going to come back to this. This is absolutely absurd in context. We are talking about US citizens being arrested by secret police who have no jurisdiction over US citizens not at or near (per law) a border or port. And you're suggesting it's okay for them to be abducted at random, as long as it's only a half workday or whatever?
Please, I beg of you. Read the Constitution. Think seriously about what it means. The words are all simple. The prose is accessible. Did the people who wrote this have in mind secret police abducting citizens? Is that Liberty?
Anyway, answers to some of your questions are in this database[1]. In general, there is no judicial review as ICE has as stated SOP to move faster than the courts, which is to say to ignore the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Yes, US citizens have been deported by ICE. Your favorite search engine can provide names of US citizens killed by ICE.
1 - https://projects.propublica.org/american-citizens-detained-d...
did you speak out?
because those of us who marched in the streets and got tear gassed in front of ICE facilities did speak out
and brave souls like Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed for speaking out
If this administration was even half as fascist as they claimed it was, they obviously wouldn't be able to make such comments publicly, but such a fact is lost on them.
As opposed to “we are the law” ICE.
I have no idea what you are talking about with cats, dogs and babies.
An international oligarch is an extremely wealthy and powerful business figure or tycoon who uses massive financial resources to exercise political, economic, or social influence across national borders.
They are getting warm and fuzzy in their echo chambers and unfiltered reality rarely comes to them.
I wish I had some solution, but apart from having Thanos glove and with a snap increase IQ of lower 50% of the population by 30 points, or similarly bioengineered nano virus, I dont.
I've tried numerous times to penetrate this membrane of dumb emotional shit but its all negative emotions and insecurities down the hole, us-vs-them and similar, no facts, just trivial to abuse shit. Good moral honest guys always had it much harder there than manipulating sociopaths.
They were legal, every last one of them. They were under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There was no "law and order" justification to object to their presence. Didn't stop the GOP from going after them. Trump and Vance viciously attacked them with the full support of the conservative media. The administration repealed their TPS protection, turning people who had done no wrong into fugitives.
This is about race. Always has been. When they run out of "illegals", they'll turn people into "illegals". When they run out of immigrants entirely, they'll overturn the 14th Amendment and start stripping citizenship from native-born Americans of the wrong color. They've already tried just that, and three motherfuckers on the Supreme Court voted to let them.
The US plans to admit exclusively white people as refugees in 2027. Meanwhile, they will admit zero of the millions of people facing actual genocide.
https://apnews.com/article/refugees-trump-immigration-white-...
Yes, I’m sure we could make up plenty of rational-sounding reasons why we should deport some people. Trump is not doing that, though. He’s doing it because he’s racist, and he certainly doesn’t need the likes of you trying to make him sound sane.
> So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?
So it turns our you weren't "just asking questions" in good faith, but rather pushing the same bog standard dog whistle trash.
The infra we are building for our future dictator is awesome.
look at the longevity of the Patriot Act - once in place ("because of X!") it's extremely difficult to kill as all kinds of forces work against killing it and it's easy to scare the public about "what will happen if it's not there"
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Let's add some levity to the situation, and here's the link: https://youtu.be/EJR1H5tf5wE?si=lGJ7_L0IN31WNMKE