Police, ICE, or any federal agents shooting someone is always a tragedy, always wrong. And I am always against heavy handed government and government over reach. I am a pro freedom, a libertarian democrat . Former democrat anyway, covid made me switch parties.
BUT, I have some questions. If there are lots of illegal immigrants in this country due to Biden's open border policy. How do you get them to go home?
Isn't it a problem when protestors actually impede federal agents doing their jobs? As Renée Good did? Protesting is one thing, impeding federal agents is another. Why is this okay?
Of course, she shouldn't have been shot. But lets be real, don't we all know that messing around with armed government agents, police or otherwise, is a dumb and risky thing to do?
Don't the ICE agents deserve some respect? ( and no, they shouldnt shoot people).
What are these protestors really up to? Do they intentionally promote violence? I have been a protestor myself ( for other issues). Its really not hard to stay out of trouble. I am confused as to why protestors who are more or less inviting violence by hindering ICE agents from doing their lawful job - why are these protestors heros?
No, you can ask whatever you want; that's something I firmly believe in your right to do. I also think we should (individually, and of our own free will!) try to be smart, which means we should focus on the issue at hand and not get stuck trying to bend the facts to fit irrelevant narratives.
Just as I don't ask if Renee Good was left handed or not, I can't really see how Biden's immigration policy justifies or doesn't justify shooting her, sending in troops, or protesting ICE. All of these issues have much more important considerations.
This whole issue can be wrapped up simply. "Messing around with armed government agents” Is an utter distortion of what happened to Ms Good. Under any concept of normal law enforcement actions, at most an office would have approached Ms Good’s car and told her she had to move. He/She could have added that if Ms Good didn’t move, she could be arrested and her car towed. That’s what should have happened.
Instead, the last view of her, with which her children will have to live for the rest of their lives is Ms Good telling the man who was going to kill her that she was not mad at him.
I agree with many of your points and would certainly like to see ICE use a much lighter touch. That said, sanctuary cities are making essentially the same arguments that the Confederates and the southern segregationists made, that their preferred way of doing things deserves to override federal law. We wouldn't be seeing such ugly incidents going on if Minnesota police departments were allowed to simply hand over convicted felons with final deportation orders, and the Minnesota politicians insisting upon sanctuary policies are behaving every bit as inappropriately and counter to American principle as the ICE officers in the disturbing footage coming out of Minneapolis. I would much prefer to see the administration pull simply pull a major chunk of federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions to encourage them to course-correct rather than the counterproductive antics ICE is pursuing at the moment.
I am surprised that so many people refuse to see that Minnesota authorities and their supporters are making the exact same arguments as the Confederacy. We don’t need to go back to Fort Sumpter to find the inconsistencies in these arguments though.
The Biden administration, in opposing Texas attempts to control its border with Mexico, made the following argument before the Supreme Court "if accepted, the court's rationale would leave the United States at the mercy of States that could seek to force the federal government to conform the implementation of federal immigration law to varying state-law regimes." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sides-biden-administration-texas-border-dispute/story?id=106575343
This was the argument of the Democratic administration only two years ago. They rightly won. No state has the right to create its own immigration policy. In the case of Minnesota, the violation of the law goes much further in that it is accompanied by unprecedented and widespread fraud. They are unashamedly stealing from my children and grandchildren, who are saddled with the fraudulent debt for decades.
This is why I detest politics. Its most ardent supporters are outlandish hypocrites. I am sure that Republicans wrote similar jeremiads denouncing Democrat authoritarianism when they lost to Biden.
I don't have a horse in the race of "local control"; laws exist for a reason and should be obeyed, and Minnesota nor California nor Texas get to decide they don't want the federal government to enforce federal laws in their state.
However, the manner of that enforcement appears to be grossly unconstitutional and grossly inept, which is what this article was about, wasn't it?
I would prefer to see a softer-handed approach from ICE and for more focus to be placed on penalizing employers who hire unauthorized migrants than just the migrants themselves. I have more beef with people hiring illegal labor to undercut their more scrupulous competitors than I do with any particular migrant who isn't otherwise committing crimes.
It's not about "softness." It's about legality and effectiveness; many of these tactics are illegal, and they are also foolish, creating fear among even valid citizens and green-card-holders, and ruining the reputation of immigration enforcement. It is foolish and illegal. And worse, it doesn't matter that it's illegal or unconstitutional; no one will be punished. The president provides immunity against all federal charges, and is immune in turn. Further, the president can use withholding of immunity to dominate anyone who obeys his illegal policies, extending and deepening the corruption and lack of accountability.
I don't have a problem with penalizing businesses who hire people who do not have legal rights to work here, as much as I dislike the requirement on, say, small businesses to verify their workers, they should be penalized for employing illegal workers if it can be shown that they had the reasonable means to detect the fraud and ignored those means.
I agree with much of your critique, particularly as someone who's been an activist for a tighter border for twenty years and hates to see the cause hemorrhaging credibility for no good reason. I also think the position of sanctuary cities is obviously illegal and inappropriate, and to a significant extent causing the ugliness -- there's no ugly footage of ICE coming out of jurisdictions that cooperate in handing over convicted felons. The question is how to appropriately deal with sanctuary cities, which I would suggest would be cutting off a substantial share of their federal funding. If Minnesota doesn't want to allow police to cooperate with federal officers, then surely they don't want any money for roads and bridges either.
Sanctuary cities rest on the 10th amendment. State and local law enforcement are not bound to help federal enforcement carry out their duties. It's not illegal to refuse to help federal agencies save in the case where laws require them to (communication about legal status, for example). The courts have ruled that funding withholdings on this basis must be enacted by congress, and are outside the executive branch authority. Sanctuary cities can be unlawful if they fail to obey the laws, but they are not a priori illegal -- quite the opposite.
Those who claim that ICE agents are fulfilling their responsibilities as agents of the US government are woefully misinformed. At one time, ICE agents were responsible for immigration and customs. Simple. Fraud investigations, sex trafficking and pursuing pedophiles are the responsibilities of other law enforcement agencies. How are beatings, detainment and shooting US Citizens in the head at point blank range any part of ICE’s responsibilities? Masked, camo-jacketed thugs in jeans and carrying Vietnam War era weaponry are not representative of any domestic law enforcement or military agency. Cops don’t look like this. Marines don’t look like this. Nor does any soldier, sailor or airman. And they don’t behave this way. They do not act out this cruel, brutal cosplay wanna-be video game thuggery. This is performative political intimidation. Face it. Recognize it. Admit it. HUA. This is not about immigration or border control or fraud or sex trafficking or breaking up pedophilia rings. It is about intimidation of the American people. Don’t make excuses for these thugs or their bosses. That's pathetic. As it is now structured, ICE’s mission is the intimidation and subjugation of the American people.
I randomly clicked on one of the links in Noah's post. It's since been Community-Noted to fact check that it depicts not ICE, but a random Ohio SWAT team in 2019: https://x.com/MissJilianne/status/2010090110226940349
I'm totally open to the idea many ICE agents are behaving unprofessionally. It actually seems likely, to me. And to the extent it's happening, I'm of course against it.
But I have a hard time taking seriously some of the people insisting this is so.
There were many bad things about the Nazis, like the systematic murder, and many things about them that were NOT the bad things, like that they were a government or that were German. Because of this, it's useful to show, when alluding to the Nazis, that your connection is to a bad thing they did and not some more incidental fact.
Very luckily, the bad things they did are bad EVEN IF someone else does them, so we can make conversations better by actually skipping the Nazi part and saying something like "Mass murder is bad" or "I don't like it when the government threatens people with arbitrary violence for breaking the law".
*Alex, i replied to “just let ICE do their work” is “what Germans said”, meaning that this kind of silence allowed Hitler, and people like him to come to power and abuse power cruelly. We’re seeing that now. You ignored that entire argument to defend Nazis (“not all Nazis”) — the argument is it’s about ICE, BTW and instead schooled me in “proper discussion points. Like the Nazis weren’t all that bad. “Skip the Nazi part”, you counselled. Let’s just agree broadly that “mass murder is bad”. Well, maybe the Nazis planted some beautiful flowers but they were scorched by the conflagration they set off in Europe, killing 70 Million people. They executed a genocide with pitiless precision. So I want to know what makes the Nazis so dear to you that you would lecture me on “reason over passion” as an excuse to defend them in a post about ICE.
Quite passionate, but based on some bad intel— I hate Nazis, for the obvious reasons. They were, nonetheless, people, and so many fruitless comparisons can be made to all sorts of people (your favorite historical figure and Adolf Hitler were likely born with the same number of eyes, and were likely both good public speakers!). I will not reiterate the entire argument, because I hold I made it quite well above and your response was to vaguely accuse me of Nazi sympathies
Alex, i replied that “just let ICE do their work is “what Germans said, meaning that this kind of silence that allowed Hitler to come to power. You replied that the Nazis weren’t all that bad — “skipping the Nazi part” but agreeing blandly that “mass murder is bad”. Well, maybe the Ma
Let ICE do their job. In fact help them do their job by allowing your local police to assist. Realize that this is not an autocracy, half of our population voted for this and supports it, yes half the population doesn’t support it and didn’t vote for it, so let’s see how things go. It’s the midterm elections this year and then a presidential election again in 2028. That’s how Democracy works. If the Democrats get their turn, then I will support them, even though I will very likely disagree with the majority of their policies.
Where in the original article did the author suggest that ICE should not be allowed to do their job?
"I remain deeply uncertain about what we can and should do about this dawning reality. But there is value in simply documenting it in its appalling details." This statement does not seem to suggest the article argues for interfering with ICE in Minnesota.
> Until five minutes ago, nearly anyone who saw these images and read these accounts about any place in the world would conclude, quite reasonably, that the people there were living under a dictatorship.
Rhetorically, noticing that people keep violating an obvious rule about their behavior is a great time to notice that it's your model of the world that is in error, not reality.
People are afraid of "government crackdowns" but unafraid of "government enforcement of laws", because of what psychologists call the Availability Heuristic. When you ask someone to imagine a "government crackdown", they imagine it's done for cruelty's sake, but when they see a crackdown done for the law's sake, this prototype doesn't match.
Part of the issue here is that we've totally lost communication here between people who think these events are justified and thise that don't. People that think this is unjustified say ridiculous things like "Maybe the officer could have fired 1 time, but 3 is an outrage" (not stopping to actually imagine how long the brain takes to respond to commands and that the officer clearly must have decided to 'fire upon' the vehicle in a single instant). People who think this is justified say insane things like "She was a domestic terrorist trying to kill ICE agents" (not stopping to consider that a person can drive a vehicle in the direction of someone out of ignorant accident, and deciding to smooth over their conscience by imagining that anyone 'their side' killed must have deserved it).
We can worth through this issue by sitting down together and actually talking things over. You know almost nothing about any breaking news story, so act like it! Reserve judgement for a day! If Renee Good really WAS a domestic terrorist, would it mean that ICE are all good guys? No! If she wasn't, does it mean ICE are all bad guys? No! So what the hell sort of bearing does it have on whether the the city is under inappropriate govt control?
It has a tremendous bearing on the appearance of the morality of one's particular team, and thus the status of that team, and thus any suggestion of impropriety or immorality must be immediately dispelled. Because god forbid we let the OTHER team put one over on us...because we know they will, can't trust those dirty jerks.
Police, ICE, or any federal agents shooting someone is always a tragedy, always wrong. And I am always against heavy handed government and government over reach. I am a pro freedom, a libertarian democrat . Former democrat anyway, covid made me switch parties.
BUT, I have some questions. If there are lots of illegal immigrants in this country due to Biden's open border policy. How do you get them to go home?
Isn't it a problem when protestors actually impede federal agents doing their jobs? As Renée Good did? Protesting is one thing, impeding federal agents is another. Why is this okay?
Of course, she shouldn't have been shot. But lets be real, don't we all know that messing around with armed government agents, police or otherwise, is a dumb and risky thing to do?
Don't the ICE agents deserve some respect? ( and no, they shouldnt shoot people).
What are these protestors really up to? Do they intentionally promote violence? I have been a protestor myself ( for other issues). Its really not hard to stay out of trouble. I am confused as to why protestors who are more or less inviting violence by hindering ICE agents from doing their lawful job - why are these protestors heros?
I do not see how asking these questions are relevant to any of the other questions at hand
"Please stop asking them"
No, you can ask whatever you want; that's something I firmly believe in your right to do. I also think we should (individually, and of our own free will!) try to be smart, which means we should focus on the issue at hand and not get stuck trying to bend the facts to fit irrelevant narratives.
Just as I don't ask if Renee Good was left handed or not, I can't really see how Biden's immigration policy justifies or doesn't justify shooting her, sending in troops, or protesting ICE. All of these issues have much more important considerations.
This whole issue can be wrapped up simply. "Messing around with armed government agents” Is an utter distortion of what happened to Ms Good. Under any concept of normal law enforcement actions, at most an office would have approached Ms Good’s car and told her she had to move. He/She could have added that if Ms Good didn’t move, she could be arrested and her car towed. That’s what should have happened.
Instead, the last view of her, with which her children will have to live for the rest of their lives is Ms Good telling the man who was going to kill her that she was not mad at him.
I agree with many of your points and would certainly like to see ICE use a much lighter touch. That said, sanctuary cities are making essentially the same arguments that the Confederates and the southern segregationists made, that their preferred way of doing things deserves to override federal law. We wouldn't be seeing such ugly incidents going on if Minnesota police departments were allowed to simply hand over convicted felons with final deportation orders, and the Minnesota politicians insisting upon sanctuary policies are behaving every bit as inappropriately and counter to American principle as the ICE officers in the disturbing footage coming out of Minneapolis. I would much prefer to see the administration pull simply pull a major chunk of federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions to encourage them to course-correct rather than the counterproductive antics ICE is pursuing at the moment.
I am surprised that so many people refuse to see that Minnesota authorities and their supporters are making the exact same arguments as the Confederacy. We don’t need to go back to Fort Sumpter to find the inconsistencies in these arguments though.
The Biden administration, in opposing Texas attempts to control its border with Mexico, made the following argument before the Supreme Court "if accepted, the court's rationale would leave the United States at the mercy of States that could seek to force the federal government to conform the implementation of federal immigration law to varying state-law regimes." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sides-biden-administration-texas-border-dispute/story?id=106575343
This was the argument of the Democratic administration only two years ago. They rightly won. No state has the right to create its own immigration policy. In the case of Minnesota, the violation of the law goes much further in that it is accompanied by unprecedented and widespread fraud. They are unashamedly stealing from my children and grandchildren, who are saddled with the fraudulent debt for decades.
This is why I detest politics. Its most ardent supporters are outlandish hypocrites. I am sure that Republicans wrote similar jeremiads denouncing Democrat authoritarianism when they lost to Biden.
The dissembling hypocrisy is off the charts.
I don't have a horse in the race of "local control"; laws exist for a reason and should be obeyed, and Minnesota nor California nor Texas get to decide they don't want the federal government to enforce federal laws in their state.
However, the manner of that enforcement appears to be grossly unconstitutional and grossly inept, which is what this article was about, wasn't it?
I would prefer to see a softer-handed approach from ICE and for more focus to be placed on penalizing employers who hire unauthorized migrants than just the migrants themselves. I have more beef with people hiring illegal labor to undercut their more scrupulous competitors than I do with any particular migrant who isn't otherwise committing crimes.
It's not about "softness." It's about legality and effectiveness; many of these tactics are illegal, and they are also foolish, creating fear among even valid citizens and green-card-holders, and ruining the reputation of immigration enforcement. It is foolish and illegal. And worse, it doesn't matter that it's illegal or unconstitutional; no one will be punished. The president provides immunity against all federal charges, and is immune in turn. Further, the president can use withholding of immunity to dominate anyone who obeys his illegal policies, extending and deepening the corruption and lack of accountability.
I don't have a problem with penalizing businesses who hire people who do not have legal rights to work here, as much as I dislike the requirement on, say, small businesses to verify their workers, they should be penalized for employing illegal workers if it can be shown that they had the reasonable means to detect the fraud and ignored those means.
I agree with much of your critique, particularly as someone who's been an activist for a tighter border for twenty years and hates to see the cause hemorrhaging credibility for no good reason. I also think the position of sanctuary cities is obviously illegal and inappropriate, and to a significant extent causing the ugliness -- there's no ugly footage of ICE coming out of jurisdictions that cooperate in handing over convicted felons. The question is how to appropriately deal with sanctuary cities, which I would suggest would be cutting off a substantial share of their federal funding. If Minnesota doesn't want to allow police to cooperate with federal officers, then surely they don't want any money for roads and bridges either.
Sanctuary cities rest on the 10th amendment. State and local law enforcement are not bound to help federal enforcement carry out their duties. It's not illegal to refuse to help federal agencies save in the case where laws require them to (communication about legal status, for example). The courts have ruled that funding withholdings on this basis must be enacted by congress, and are outside the executive branch authority. Sanctuary cities can be unlawful if they fail to obey the laws, but they are not a priori illegal -- quite the opposite.
Those who claim that ICE agents are fulfilling their responsibilities as agents of the US government are woefully misinformed. At one time, ICE agents were responsible for immigration and customs. Simple. Fraud investigations, sex trafficking and pursuing pedophiles are the responsibilities of other law enforcement agencies. How are beatings, detainment and shooting US Citizens in the head at point blank range any part of ICE’s responsibilities? Masked, camo-jacketed thugs in jeans and carrying Vietnam War era weaponry are not representative of any domestic law enforcement or military agency. Cops don’t look like this. Marines don’t look like this. Nor does any soldier, sailor or airman. And they don’t behave this way. They do not act out this cruel, brutal cosplay wanna-be video game thuggery. This is performative political intimidation. Face it. Recognize it. Admit it. HUA. This is not about immigration or border control or fraud or sex trafficking or breaking up pedophilia rings. It is about intimidation of the American people. Don’t make excuses for these thugs or their bosses. That's pathetic. As it is now structured, ICE’s mission is the intimidation and subjugation of the American people.
I randomly clicked on one of the links in Noah's post. It's since been Community-Noted to fact check that it depicts not ICE, but a random Ohio SWAT team in 2019: https://x.com/MissJilianne/status/2010090110226940349
I'm totally open to the idea many ICE agents are behaving unprofessionally. It actually seems likely, to me. And to the extent it's happening, I'm of course against it.
But I have a hard time taking seriously some of the people insisting this is so.
It’s very simple. Protest if you want but leave ICE the hell alone, let them do their jobs, local authorities cooperate and then they can move on.
That’s what the German public said.
There were many bad things about the Nazis, like the systematic murder, and many things about them that were NOT the bad things, like that they were a government or that were German. Because of this, it's useful to show, when alluding to the Nazis, that your connection is to a bad thing they did and not some more incidental fact.
Very luckily, the bad things they did are bad EVEN IF someone else does them, so we can make conversations better by actually skipping the Nazi part and saying something like "Mass murder is bad" or "I don't like it when the government threatens people with arbitrary violence for breaking the law".
*Alex, i replied to “just let ICE do their work” is “what Germans said”, meaning that this kind of silence allowed Hitler, and people like him to come to power and abuse power cruelly. We’re seeing that now. You ignored that entire argument to defend Nazis (“not all Nazis”) — the argument is it’s about ICE, BTW and instead schooled me in “proper discussion points. Like the Nazis weren’t all that bad. “Skip the Nazi part”, you counselled. Let’s just agree broadly that “mass murder is bad”. Well, maybe the Nazis planted some beautiful flowers but they were scorched by the conflagration they set off in Europe, killing 70 Million people. They executed a genocide with pitiless precision. So I want to know what makes the Nazis so dear to you that you would lecture me on “reason over passion” as an excuse to defend them in a post about ICE.
Quite passionate, but based on some bad intel— I hate Nazis, for the obvious reasons. They were, nonetheless, people, and so many fruitless comparisons can be made to all sorts of people (your favorite historical figure and Adolf Hitler were likely born with the same number of eyes, and were likely both good public speakers!). I will not reiterate the entire argument, because I hold I made it quite well above and your response was to vaguely accuse me of Nazi sympathies
Ya. The trains ran on time. Gotcha.
Using muddy emotional appeals instead of clear & sound argumentation— this is something Hitler was famous for
Alex, i replied that “just let ICE do their work is “what Germans said, meaning that this kind of silence that allowed Hitler to come to power. You replied that the Nazis weren’t all that bad — “skipping the Nazi part” but agreeing blandly that “mass murder is bad”. Well, maybe the Ma
This is chilling.
Let ICE do their job. In fact help them do their job by allowing your local police to assist. Realize that this is not an autocracy, half of our population voted for this and supports it, yes half the population doesn’t support it and didn’t vote for it, so let’s see how things go. It’s the midterm elections this year and then a presidential election again in 2028. That’s how Democracy works. If the Democrats get their turn, then I will support them, even though I will very likely disagree with the majority of their policies.
Where in the original article did the author suggest that ICE should not be allowed to do their job?
"I remain deeply uncertain about what we can and should do about this dawning reality. But there is value in simply documenting it in its appalling details." This statement does not seem to suggest the article argues for interfering with ICE in Minnesota.
> Until five minutes ago, nearly anyone who saw these images and read these accounts about any place in the world would conclude, quite reasonably, that the people there were living under a dictatorship.
Rhetorically, noticing that people keep violating an obvious rule about their behavior is a great time to notice that it's your model of the world that is in error, not reality.
People are afraid of "government crackdowns" but unafraid of "government enforcement of laws", because of what psychologists call the Availability Heuristic. When you ask someone to imagine a "government crackdown", they imagine it's done for cruelty's sake, but when they see a crackdown done for the law's sake, this prototype doesn't match.
Part of the issue here is that we've totally lost communication here between people who think these events are justified and thise that don't. People that think this is unjustified say ridiculous things like "Maybe the officer could have fired 1 time, but 3 is an outrage" (not stopping to actually imagine how long the brain takes to respond to commands and that the officer clearly must have decided to 'fire upon' the vehicle in a single instant). People who think this is justified say insane things like "She was a domestic terrorist trying to kill ICE agents" (not stopping to consider that a person can drive a vehicle in the direction of someone out of ignorant accident, and deciding to smooth over their conscience by imagining that anyone 'their side' killed must have deserved it).
We can worth through this issue by sitting down together and actually talking things over. You know almost nothing about any breaking news story, so act like it! Reserve judgement for a day! If Renee Good really WAS a domestic terrorist, would it mean that ICE are all good guys? No! If she wasn't, does it mean ICE are all bad guys? No! So what the hell sort of bearing does it have on whether the the city is under inappropriate govt control?
It has a tremendous bearing on the appearance of the morality of one's particular team, and thus the status of that team, and thus any suggestion of impropriety or immorality must be immediately dispelled. Because god forbid we let the OTHER team put one over on us...because we know they will, can't trust those dirty jerks.
thank you for the moral clarity of your writing.
How well we thought we loved her
Henceforth will ne’er be known
For now she hath been murdered
Forever lost, her throne
Here lies democracy
We thought we knew her well
Killed by autocracy
We chose to live in hell