Democrats truly are addicted to “It isn’t what it is,” or Yoo’s Rationalization. It is this characteristic that has led them so deep into George Orwell territory and why the 21st Century mutation of the party is so untrustworthy. “War is Peace,” and an open border was a secure border, according to Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security. “Slavery is Freedom,” and President Biden was sharp as a tack even as he descended into gibberish on national TV. And, as we all know, “Ignorance is Strength,” and Kamala Harris was the most qualified Presidential candidate ever, ran a perfect campaign, and only lost because Americans are sexists and racists.
Maura Healy, the Democratic governor of my original home state (which has always been a little bit nuts) really opted in to Yoo’s Rationalization big time this week. She submitted a radical pro-illegal immigration bill to designate schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses as official “ICE-free zones,” which would have the effect of sharply (and I believe illegally) limiting where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can operate in the Bay State.
Healy’s bill would require ICE agents to obtain a judicial warrant before making civil immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive locations,” effectively placing some of the most common public spaces off-limits to routine federal enforcement. I.C.E. agents would have to obtain a judicial warrant before making civil immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive locations,” effectively placing some of the many public spaces off-limits to routine federal law enforcement. The bill would direct state agencies not to allow I.C.E. to use state-owned property for enforcement operations and restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. And the proposed legislation does not distinguish between non-violent illegal immigration cases and criminal offenders: apparently in the Bay State, any illegal immigrant is a Good Illegal Immigrant.
Ethics Alarms 
When and why did foreigners achieve favored nation status among the left? I think it’s a function of the subversion of organized religion. “Charity” has been changed to “Social Justice.” Giving money to the poor via church administered charitable organizations has been replaced with shoveling tax dollars to the victims of oppression. The big difference is that charity is voluntary, taxation is not. So, these morally superior people who should have gone into the ministry, have instead gone into politics and policy and social services positions and are hijacking the government and turning it into an involuntary charity. I wish these people would stop fleecing the taxpaying citizenry and get real jobs
The Left doesn’t believe in separation of Church and State, they instead believe in the State seizing all functions of religion.
So far, they’ve almost completely absorbed education, which is why they dislike homeschooling so much. They’ve got a majority of healthcare. And their adoption of brainwashing, predictions of doom, social coercion and the shunning of defects has far outshined the most notorious of religious cults.
Is there something to be said about the fact there are three women in that photograph and no guys? Are women governing as mothers and making sure everyone is taken care of? Are men more able to accept that there are winners and losers? Do women want to make everyone happy while men try to raise children who can compete and thrive and take care of themselves?
I mean, yes, but it isn’t just the women. Ask Tim Walz and Gavin Newsome. I’d also put money that the reality sits somewhere between “apportionment is based on bodies, not citizens, so the more the merrier” and “of the 3496 per person, per week, I’d guess 800 per week is going to the illegal immigrant, and the rest is going…. somewhere very important, I’m sure. Probably to people who helped other people get elected.”
But Walz and Newsom and Frey are all thoroughly feminized guys. I think they govern strictly within the parameters set by the women.
I wait for the dya when “sanctuary States, cities, municipalites, etc” no longer receive Federal funds of any kind.
Stop SS checks, medicare payments, Federal retirement, all monies that come from federal largesses. Then await the cyr and the hue from the constitutents.
Then they’ll try to collect federal taxes and keep them. That should be interesting. Or maybe they’ll increase their state taxes and tell their citizens not to pay the IRS. In any event, they’ll be in front of a Biden or Obama appointed District Court judge in a New York minute.
How long before any federal law enforcement- FBI, the IRS, the ATF? – can be restricted in any state that has a ruling party with the chutzpah to do it?
I think that ICE is shooting itself in the foot by being excessively scary.
First, if people are already reporting for court dates regarding their immigration status, arresting them when they show up not only discourages them from obeying lawful orders given to them, but it is also completely redundant. It wastes the court’s time (when the people who are arrested can’t show up) and ICE’s time, since they’re spending resources on arresting people who are already being processed.
Second, if people are afraid that they’re going to be arrested in random places and detained in inhumane conditions, they’re going to do a better job of hiding (and they’ll have more help from their neighbors) than if ICE just follows normal law enforcement practices. Get a warrant, show up, be courteous, and tell them what to expect.
In my experience, the more one tries to get one’s way through brute force because people are unequivocally wrong and don’t deserve any consideration or concessions, the more opposition one faces. Making people feel safe and comfortable isn’t just a favor we do for people who are wrong. It’s practical. If people don’t have a basic level of trust that we care about their safety, if we don’t show that there are lines we won’t cross, that we care about something more important than just getting our way, they will fight with everything they have. Maybe we could win anyway, but is that really our best option?
When people trust us, they are far more likely to cooperate, and far less prone to desperate acts of destruction. In this case, trustworthy law enforcement also means that lawbreakers also won’t have a bunch of other people thinking that it’s the right thing to do to help them hide from the brutal arm of the law. That saves a huge amount of effort. Is there a reason that doesn’t look like the obvious better option to you?
”I think that ICE is shooting itself in the foot by being excessively scary.”
Since the PR game has been lost by Trump’s administration, I guess now we can try to describe what a better plan would have been. Trump “shoots him self in the foot” constantly. It is sickening to watch (he could have done things so much better).
PragerU’s survey might find this untrue. Public opinion is predicated only on what info they get.
Imagine if the media portrayed all Muslims as terrorizing cities or Blacks as over sexed males that prey on white women.
The truth exists if you want to find it.
“Prager U’s” survey might find this untrue. Public opinion is predicated only on what info they get.”
I can only tell you what I see and what my impressions are. Trump & Co. are not winning battles, they are losing battles and Trump presents himself as a ridiculous but very powerful idiot.
Your comment about the fact that we can only make assessments on the basis of the information presented to us is interesting. I suppose that you mean that if people received different views of Trump’s ridiculous failures (i.e. not like the NYT’s coverage, designed to undermine him) that it would all appear to them different?
My impression? Trump does not really care about advancing genuine policy of the sort he campaigned on. With each passing week he seems more deceitful than the last week. He could have done extraordinary things had there been smart (realistic) planning but my sense (I hope I am wrong) is that his plans will result in negative gains. Largely due to his blustering bumbling personality defects.
I think that ICE is shooting itself in the foot by being excessively scary.
Congratulations, that comment made my head explode.
What is excessively scary is having 20 million unvetted, illegal aliens in the country.
What is excessively scary is the fact that many of them are, as Trump stated in a media-distorted statement in 2015, rapists and murderers.
What is excessively scary is that elected Democratic officials are deliberately scaremongering by comparing ICE to the Gestapo and illegal alien criminal to Anne Frank.
What is excessively scary is so many Americans are so ignorant and gullible that they beleive them
What is excessively scary is that you want let anti-law protests designed to provoke violence affect law enforcement policy.
What is excessively scary is that you can’t comprehend that tracking down criminals deliberately hidden among the population can’t be accomplished with smiles, “pretty please,” teddy bears and rainbows.
What is excessively scary is that you would write such nonsense sincerely when ICE agents are being doxxed, targeted and attacked by a nationwide anti-American movement aimed at election corruption and open borders.
What is excessively scary is that a weenie conclusion like that is exactly what the Trump opponents and open borders activist want, and you would capitulate to that, encouraging more, not less opposition.
What is excessively scary is that the news media is overwhelmingly responsible for making law enforcement seem scary when the Axis doesn’t want the law enforced. Mar-a-Largo was raided late at night by an absurd number of agents with weapons drawn, when there was NO chance 0f violence, resistance, or a violent criminal fighting back. Did you object to that being “scary”?
What is excessively scary is that your weenie, “Can’t we all get along?” capitulation to anti-law enforcement propaganda and open borders activism is exactly what the lies, biased coverage and violence-provoking rhetoric are designed to produce, so you are enabling more, not less, of the same.
What is excessively scary is that dumb people and lazy, emotion-driven citizens are thinking the same way, and you are not trying to encourage rational analysis, but rather endorsing anti-law enforcement distortions.
In my personal case I agree with every point. And still at every juncture it looks as though Trump and his administration are losing the public relations battle. For this reason the question I ask seems sensible: How can Trump et al choose a better plan that accomplishes the stated objectives within the context of PR landscape that is so unfavorable -to his outlined program?
It was not my idea and someone did suggest going after the illegals in those states that SUPPORT Trump more. Not in a rebellious state like Minnesota.
It also seems to me that if millions and millions of illegals must work to survive in the US, or receive assistance, that the policies should be directed at EMPLOYERS to make it very costly if they are found employing illegals. And also 1) under-cutting all state support routes and 2) access to healthcare and hospitals.
And offering (like Sweden?) a money payment to those who option to leave.
There is no way to round up even 10 million illegals, hold them, deal with legal appeals, and deport them because the will of the nation will diminish quickly.
With the Axis of Unethical Conduct arrayed against Trump, there is no way that his administration can win the PR battle. The only way the mainstream media will give Trump any positive coverage is if he follows the example of Budd Dwyer.
Jack. I see that you are once again having trouble distinguishing between objective and subjective. Congratulations, you do not find ICE scary. Illegal immigrants do, but so do people whom ICE might assume are illegal immigrants because they don’t do their damned homework, and so do people who care about any of the above.
Consequences for breaking the law can be scary, but law enforcement itself doesn’t have to be scary. Should people be afraid of the consequences of breaking the law? Sure, fine. That’s in a sweet spot between “getting caught is a slap on the wrist” and “if I break the law these faceless goons will beat me to death.”
Here in the Land of the Free, even actual criminals have a right to believe that they will be treated fairly and humanely by law enforcement if they cooperate. If they have a reason to believe they will be abused and possibly harmed, they have every reason not to cooperate. This makes law enforcement unnecessarily difficult.
If you think that the perception of ICE as violent thugs is unwarranted, or even based on malicious misinformation, then unfortunately, it’s still ICE’s responsibility to dispel that perception. PR is part of the ethical principle of competence. It is irresponsible for law enforcement to make no effort to maintain the a trustworthy reputation. That means actively demonstrating an adherence to the Constitution, the avoidance of excessive force and torturous detainment conditions, and the prevention and restitution of clerical errors that get innocent people arrested, detained, or even killed.
Who cares if law breakers find law enforcement “scary”? Or those who are allied with lawbreakers by family or friendship ties? Knowing that you are about to be held accountable would be exactly as “scary” if ICE dressed in tutus and spoke using helium. What would you propose to make the people who have to apprehend criminals and those who shouldn’t be here less threatening? Soothing music? Remember, the administration gave these people a self-exit option and even would pay for it. So they gamble on “Come and get us, copper!” and we’re supposed to feel sorry for their feelings when accountability arrives as promised?
Law enforcement cares if lawbreakers find law enforcement scary. To clarify, it is to law enforcement’s advantage that lawbreakers feel that resistance is futile (which can be scary, sure), but also that lawbreakers feel that cooperation will be rewarded with courtesy. That’s why “good cop, bad cop” is more effective than just “bad cops”.
There’s a difference between, “Hi, you’re under arrest,” and, “Get on the ground, scum!” If people are afraid that law enforcement will brutalize whomever they arrest, before they’re even sure they have the right person, then people who care about human rights, not to mention the ethical principle of proportionality, are going to stand up against law enforcement, and I don’t blame them. Law enforcement’s image of self-restraint protects law enforcement officers and makes their jobs easier.
Just because you think someone deserves to be afraid doesn’t mean that you’re not undermining your own goals by making them afraid. You can wag your finger at them and tell them they’re a bad person, but that’s unlikely to work. Dispelling fear is much more practical and effective.
If ICE had the overwhelming force to simply round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them without anyone else being able to stop them, maybe invoking fear would work on a practical level, or at least not be a disadvantage. But the reason that ICE officers hide their identities and shoot people they’ve just incapacitated is because their approach of making people afraid has mobilized huge numbers of people against them. Now ICE has reasons to be afraid, and they are largely responsible for that. We didn’t see this much public backlash against ICE when they were deporting people during Obama’s presidency, I’m given to understand.
ICE has trapped themselves in a loop of distrust with a big chunk of the general public. Nobody wants to take the first step towards breaking that loop because they don’t know what a safe step looks like. (Investigating the shootings would be good. Badge numbers would also be good.)
You have to keep in mind that humans are animals, and making them afraid makes it harder for them to listen, learn, and use good judgment. Based on your rhetoric, maybe you’re afraid of what happens if the United States continues to allow illegal immigrants to stay here.
“Remember, the administration gave these people a self-exit option and even would pay for it.” I vaguely heard about that. Is that still around? Is it still being publicized? That would be an excellent carrot to contrast the ICE stick.
One of the principles of the Art of War is to leave people a line of retreat, or they will fight to their last breath. You need to give people a ray of hope that leads them where you want them to go, because if you fill their world with fear on all sides then the only way for them to make the fear stop is for them to fight you. Making “fight you” the most attractive option is usually a stupid idea. If you think people aren’t seeing their options accurately, then it is to your advantage to help them do that, which will require earning their trust. Do you understand these simple principles of applied ethics? Do you understand how they apply in this situation?
The accountability part of committing crimes has to be unpleasant as a key part of the deterrent process. I don’t know where the idea came from that it should be or CAN be otherwise. The reason I always thought mass deportation were impossible was because apprehending so many would look and feel ugly. And so it does. But it’s a dirty job, and the government was forced into it. If its going to be done, it’s going to look and feel scary, or people are going to call it scary whether it is or not.
Unpleasant, sure. But terrifying? Torturous? Potentially lethal? Are those parts also necessary? A lot of the parts of this process you are defending as inevitable or desirable, I’m saying are evitable and counterproductive.
“Torturous? Potentially lethal?”
I don’t know what you’re referring to. But resisting arrest should be potentially lethal, in my opinion. I don’t understand why officers pull guns at all, if a perp knows that if he or she just bolts, the cop can’t shoot. I think we have more deaths from attempted arrests than we would if suspects knew resisting was dangerous.
Yes, if someone resists arrest, all bets are off. However, people need reasons to trust that if they comply with the arrest, they’re safe, both during the arrest and when they are imprisoned. Otherwise there’s no reason for them not to resist.
(I should clarify, the “potentially lethal” wasn’t referring to either of the Minnesota shootings, but was more regarding things like making sure people are supplied with their prescriptions when in jail. An innocent person who needs regular medications would probably not anticipate or prepare for the risk of arrest. Sorry, I should have clarified that when I brought it up.)
Sacre bleu! IC quotes from The Art of War!
Next von Clausewitz!
My head spins …
Ethics is the constructive principle that deals with conflict. To understand ethics, it’s necessary to understand the forms conflict can take and how people engage in it. I’m not a military expert, but I respect the skills involved and have a foundational understanding of the basic principles.
People need to know how to defend themselves in order to enforce boundaries, which is part of ethics. To understand effective defense, it’s necessary to understand effective attack.
Ethics doesn’t stop applying in war; it just looks a bit different. Part of ethics is knowing what you want to accomplish and what you’re willing to do to accomplish it. What is your bare minimum goal? What is your ideal victory? And how can you lower the cost of accomplishing those goals? That’s why making de-escalation an attractive option is a practical approach in warfare and in other forms of conflict.
I agree with what you wrote. The following interested me:
That’s why making de-escalation an attractive option is a practical approach in warfare and in other forms of conflict.
If this is so, then escalation must also be recognized as a legitimate political and ethical tool, because it is attractive and practical if there are certain objectives to be obtained.
Sure. Offhand, I’d say that a good use of escalation is to make de-escalation look good in comparison, so that people go for it. Any time a person or group imposes serious consequences for violating a boundary, that’s a form of escalation. For example, punishing shoplifting with jail time is escalation. By contrast, an “equivalent” response would be taking something that belonged to the perpetrator.
When boundaries are important, sometimes “an eye for an eye” doesn’t quite cut it, because other people are more willing to pay that price in order to cross the boundary, when all you want is for the boundary to be respected.
This is why some countries have fines that scale with the income of the transgressor. When the punishment for breaking the law is a flat fine, the law doesn’t exist for the rich. It’s also an issue with enforcing laws for corporations. They can break laws because if they get caught, they can afford to pay the fine. The benefits of breaking laws are worth the potential fine.
As useful as escalation is, it’s still essential to make sure there’s a path to de-escalation. Otherwise the situation just keeps escalating even though nobody really wants it to (an Abilene paradox), and a bunch of people die without accomplishing anything.
Respectfully, I would ask for your evaluation of the Democrats in this situation. You don’t agree with their positions and actions, do you?
Thank you for the thoughtful question!
I don’t oppose enforcing immigration law in general. Should illegal immigrants who came to the United States years ago, started families, and integrated themselves into the community be able to count on never being deported? No, I don’t think so. If we have the resources, I think it might be good if we could allow people who have been productive members of society for long enough to make the case that they should be allowed to stay, but I can also see arguments against that. At minimum, however, the deportation process should at minimum allow people to set their affairs in order.
I do believe that there are ethical and unethical ways to enforce laws. Specifically, I would expect ICE to behave like regular law enforcement in the following ways. (These are just some criteria for how I believe law enforcement should operate. I welcome arguments that it is already doing so.)
First, ICE should prioritize spending its limited resources on the most dangerous and/or expensive illegal immigrants. That said, I’m not inherently against enforcing immigration laws against illegal immigrants who are actively contributing to their communities and abiding by all other laws. One of the principles of resource management is that we have to allocate some resources towards lower priority cases, or those would never get addressed.
Second, ICE should make a serious effort to know who it is arresting and why. Police don’t arrest people based on profiling alone, and ICE shouldn’t either. They need to get warrants before they enter someone’s house. If they’re arresting someone on the street they either need to know who it is or they need to have a good reason to believe the person is not in the country legally.
Third, ICE needs to have some predictable limits for what they will and won’t do. Making people live in fear doesn’t help you catch them. Usually it does the opposite, and endangers everyone in the process. People have to have some confidence that certain important places are safe (e.g. hospitals), so that they and their families and the people around them can stay healthy until the law catches up with them. We don’t need to create incentives to avoid people getting lifesaving treatment in an emergency.
Fourth, the processes of arrest and detention must be safe as long as the person cooperates. The person must be able to get in touch with family and legal support, and provided with any medical supplies they need.
Fifth, people must always have a chance to a chance to prove they are innocent, as soon as possible. If a person can produce proof of legal residence that ICE can verify, then there’s no reason to keep them imprisoned until a judge can look at the case.
Sixth, these processes must be transparent. Accurate records of activities and prisoners must be maintained and available upon legal request. The practice of having anonymous ICE officers creates a vicious circle, where ICE is seen as untrustworthy, and therefore people try to sabotage them, and therefore they must hide their identities, and therefore they are seen as untrustworthy. It will take a while to break that circle, but in the meantime ICE should at least have badge numbers that they can give people. Those don’t need to be publicly associated with an identity.
Seventh, the deportation process needs to be organized. Make sure people can get their affairs in order so that their family can have at least an immediate plan to survive. For each deportee, their home country needs to be confirmed and coordinated with (unless the deportee requests otherwise for personal safety reasons). I’m not sure if we need to worry about people lying about their country of origin in order to get deported somewhere else. Maybe someone else can weigh in on that?
Are there any practical or ethical concerns about these criteria?
If ICE cannot handle what I would assume to be basic law enforcement responsibilities, then I wouldn’t disagree with the people who try to shield people from ICE by impeding ICE activities. Law enforcement must actively maintain the public’s trust, or people will have good reason to undermine them.
Should illegal immigrants who came to the United States years ago, started families, and integrated themselves into the community be able to count on never being deported? No, I don’t think so. If we have the resources, I think it might be good if we could allow people who have been productive members of society for long enough to make the case that they should be allowed to stay, but I can also see arguments against that.”
I read once that the WSJ establishment (the American business establishment) had always been in favor of (more or less) open borders. Because they could get cheap labor and having that it undermined their mortal enemy: the American worker with a family who wanted and needed more. The illegal immigrant problem is in truth an American business created problem. Fact. It was the American Left that opposed excessive immigration! Because exactly for the obvious reason: it weakens and undermined the American worker and the family.
It was, according to my research, the Reagan-class (Big Business) that optioned to move American industries to far away lands because they don’t care a damn about the well-being of the nation as such. Fact.
If illegals were allowed to come, encouraged to come and now have established families, it is absolutely unethical to expel them. They also allowed chain migration. And they established it as ethically correct not to establish limits on immigration from the poorest regions. All this was done by policy makers! And essentially? For the benefit of big business enterprises! Fact.
For Heaven’s sake why is it so difficult to see and tell the truth!?
“I think that ICE is shooting itself in the foot by being excessively scary.”
Do you believe that ICE is arriving in scary tactical gear when they pick up people in states that participate in the 287G program? You only hear about scary ICE tactics in states that are expressly resisting ICE officers. Why do you think that is. Does Florida or Tennessee’s governors control the media there?
Why did you limit the court appearances to just immigration courts – which by the way are federal and not under state jurisdiction – to frame your argument? I believe the law in question affects those who would be appearing on state charges such as DUI, Larceny, assault, etc.
“When people trust us, they are far more likely to cooperate, and far less prone to desperate acts of destruction. In this case, trustworthy law enforcement also means that lawbreakers also won’t have a bunch of other people thinking that it’s the right thing to do to help them hide from the brutal arm of the law”.
The problem with this statement is that they do trust ICE will do exactly what it says it will do. The statement above suggests that illegal aliens will believe they get a chance to stay irrespective of any deportation order. They are not fighting ICE out of distrust they are fighting to avoid deportation. Any violence that occurs is precipitated by their desire to avoid being deported. Do you honestly believe that ICE officers want to have to use brute force to effect an arrest? I trust the local police will treat me generally well but I also trust that they will be physical with me if I run from them if detained or fight them.
I would love to trust the media to give an accurate picture of how deportations and detainment facilities are managed but instead they paint a picture of concentration camps abusing people that even intelligent people want to fall because their guy isn’t in the White House. Yeah, I would love to trust a bit of honesty on the part of those who just cannot stand the idea of consequences for behavior.
I just left a Walmart in western Maryland where the 287g program is alive and well. It does not appear that the multitudes of shoppers who speak Spanish and various middle eastern dialects are not cowering in fear of ICE.