> All that said, you're claiming that a non-zero number of people falsely deported (a clear violation of the Constitution) is acceptable to you?
If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote:
> The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0
You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil,
rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen.
We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think:
>You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration.
Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Provide a specific number of illegal (as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) acts by ICE that you are willing to tolerate.
And would that number change if you and/or your family are among those?[1]
As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law. Because we're supposed to live in a society of laws, not unaccountable, masked thugs who can act with impunity -- regardless of the goal.
The ends do not justify the means.
Want to be "tough" on those who have committed a civil infraction (overstaying their visas -- the vast majority of those who aren't here on valid documents) and on those who evaded border security (a misdemeanor). Fine. Then do so without harassing, beating and murdering folks, including those who don't have valid residence documents/visas -- as the penalty for such things is a fine and a short jail stay, then removal to their home country -- and certainly not creating a "papers please"[0] police state in our free and open society.
That's not the society I've lived in for more than half a century. Nor is it one I wish to live in.
Why do you want to live in such a society? No. Really. I'd like to understand why you want to live in a police state. Do tell.
>Given that a system is necessary,
Which system is "necessary"? We never (for 250 years) had to have masked thugs maiming, murdering and disappearing my fellow Americans before. Why is that? Because it's illegal and an explicit violation of Constitutional rights.
Why is it "necessary" now?
[0] So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?
[1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.
> Okay. How many Americans being murdered, beaten and deported without warrant, due process or oversight, all in explicit and direct violation of the Constitution are you willing to tolerate. Ten? A hundred? A hundred thousand? […] As for me, I won't tolerate any violations of the rights of those protected by the law.
This is demonstrably false; if you aren’t violently resisting it, you’re tolerating it the same way that I am tolerating it. Consider this; Israel’s security is effectively guaranteed by the United States. Israel has killed innocent civilians. The United States is at least partially complicit in these crimes insofar as it continues to finance Israeli national security. This is ongoing. It’s happening now. You can say you won’t tolerate it, but you are tolerating it; you’re here with me now having this conversation, and not engaged in a campaign of guerrilla warfare against those facilitating these crimes.
When I say “the ideal number is 0,” it means just that; there’s not a situation in which it would become legally acceptable for a citizen to be deported, but it could feasibly happen, and if it did, this would not invalidate immigration enforcement as a practice.
> So you want to have a society like the USSR, East Germany and the like, where masked, anonymous police can demand identity documents without warrants, probable cause or exigent circumstance and even if you produce such they can ignore them and abduct you off the street without recourse?
None of that appears anywhere in my post.
> [1] Let's deport you and your family to CECOT "by accident." Oh gee. Sorry, lurk2. But our app says you're a dangerous alien. No, you don't get a lawyer or in front of a judge -- you're illegal, you don't have rights -- even though the Constitution says that all people in the US are entitled to due process.
You’re trying to use this as a rhetorical flourish (“How would you feel if the thing I’m pretending like you’re endorsing happened to you, huh?”) but the way you’ve written it betrays that it isn’t meant as a parable for me to learn from, but a fantasy for you to indulge in. You’re doing this because your arguments are weak and you have to rely on a resentful dream that I’ll be proven wrong in an /r/LeopardsAteMyFace style comeuppance.
Actually, you ignored (at least IMHO) the most important issue I addressed: that of the curtailment of our hard-won individual rights of free expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, due process and privacy, among others. You know, those rights that are explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, paid for with the blood and treasure of our ancestors and protected with the blood and treasure of more recent ancestors.
You didn't address that at all.
That's what's got me up in arms here.
You appear to have imagined that I must think that "everyone on the planet, especially the darkies from Central and South America must be allowed to live in lurk2's house, eat his food and fuck his wife." Far from it.
My problem with all of this is that when you take away the rights enshrined in our Constitution for some, you set the precedent to do so for everyone. And I'm not okay with that.
I guess I also asked you the wrong question. You appear to be okay with the diminution and curtailment of the rights explicitly protected in our highest law.
I guess I'd like to know why you're so willing to do so.
And yes, I strongly suspect that you're not posting in good faith, since you ignored (and then claimed otherwise) the most important parts of the discussion we ('we' meaning the HN community) were having about this.
Sadly, I expect you're channeling the anti-semites that Sartre mused upon[0] many years ago. And more's the pity.
If you read what I wrote in my comment (not what you wanted my comment to be, but the comment as it was actually written), I wrote:
> The ideal number of times either of these things would happen is 0
You’re abusing the use of the word “acceptable” to indicate endorsement rather than toleration. Given that a system is necessary, and that the system is imperfect, there will be a non-zero number problems that the system creates. We could apply this to immigration enforcement; you’ll say I’m endorsing these mistakes as a necessary evil, rather than tolerating their occurrence when compared with the alternative of simply never enforcing borders, which is the only way you could possibly guarantee mistakes like this would never happen.
We could apply it to automobiles and you’d say I was in favor of car accidents, or to NAS and you’d say I was in favor of disk failures. The only way to guarantee these systems will never fail is to abolish them, and what I’m telling you is that unless you can demonstrate that these deportations are a systemic problem, there’s no reason to do that, particularly when there are remedies for those who were actually unlawfully deported. Give this article a read, it’s far shorter than you might think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...