Hacker News Reader

Comment by shaky-carrousel | Hacker News Reader

That's easy. In the same place all the murdering from ICE agents during Obama era was.

So before the death of the protester everyone was honky dori with the deportations? It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens, but there is a large minority that only want criminal aliens deported and a much smaller militant minority that don’t want any illegal aliens deported regardless of severity of crimes committed.

It is absolutely not the case that 60% of the population wants all non-citizens deported. On what do you base your claim?

Probably based on Trump winning the last presidential election. Which doesnt tell us if thats the only reason they voted for him or the primary, but some people just generalize every vote as such.

Check CNN polling. It’s been pretty consistent over the last year or two:

56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, according to various surveys from late 2025 and early 2026, including data often discussed in connection with CNN analysis and other outlets.

Your original claim:

> It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens

Your "evidence":

> 56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally [emphasis added]

You do realize that the polling does not support your original claim, right? That "illegally" bit is rather critical and, notably, missing in your original statement.

The subject is people who entered illegally or have remained past their visas. Illegal aliens under federal law. Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents. They may want to limit some form of migration but that’s not the question and that’s not what ICE are concerned with. It’s not even in their scope in any way.

> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.

I agree, but that's not what you wrote in your original comment and were asked to defend and then failed to defend. You claimed that 60% of the population wants all aliens deported. The word "all" there means your claim included legal residents. Now you're backpedaling, I guess.

If you read further down you see I reference illegal aliens. Thats the jist.

That's not what you wrote, though. You wrote:

> ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens

That statement covers both illegal and legal aliens. Do you not know what the words you wrote mean? Why are you lying about your words that are plainly visible on this page if you do know what they mean?

A common technique used by illegal immigration sympathizers is to artfully conflate the two for argument's sake.

A common technique used by racists is to pretend they are only care about illegal immigration.

Which is interesting when coupled with the fact that the people enthusiastically carrying that out is CBP agents (the people that murdered Pretti) at 50% latino/hispanic, and ICE also disproportionately latino. Why are minorities so overrepresented in the racist forces?

"Murder" is a very specific form of homicide and is both legally and morally unlikely to be the correct term here.

Ok. Homicidal racist forces, disproportionately manned by minorities, who want to stomp on other minorities.

Imagine waiting in line for a decade, going through a grueling process, following the rules and immigrating legally, only to show up and see hordes of criminal invaders who thought they were exempt from the same.

Why do that. Just get popped out by an illegal on US soil. boom, you are a citizen, and you can join the border patrol and smugly declare "ha you didn't wait in line."

Here's to hoping the Supreme Court can fix this loophole that almost no other developed nation in the entire world still allows!

> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.

The kooks seem to be running the show.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dhs-100-million-deportations-...

But by the same token - the obstruction of federal agents who are carrying out their lawful mandate was also in that same place.

True, the implementation was messed up. Those unlawful deportation cases should have been the ones to protest. Not demonizing all of ICE or flying Mexican flags.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying Mexican flags. Americans fly flags of other countries all the time. There are English flags all over a nearby pub in my area. Heck, there is an entire national holiday for celebrating the Irish—a holiday for which the Defense Department made an exception to its policy of avoiding cultural observances.

The overreach by the current administration is what is driving the volume of protest activity. Specifically the high-volume targeting of lawful residents and Hispanic-looking citizens, and the “show your papers” geographical sweeps—none of which fit typical American notions of what is lawful.

To some extent this overreach is intentional, as an exercise in generating social media content, and to intentionally make people upset as a pretext for deploying greater levels of force.

It also seems politically performative since the current administration is focusing efforts in Chicago, Minnesota, Maine, etc, not Texas or Florida where there are far more undocumented immigrants.

There were protests against the Obama deportation campaign but they were far smaller because the campaign itself stayed within bounds that fit most people’s notions of lawfulness and propriety. They also did not make the huge mistake of deciding in advance to all-out defend every single bad decision by every law enforcement agent. That alone is a huge factor in the pushback that officials are getting, even from GOP and 2A leaders.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with flying a Mexican flag - if you are trying to create a lighting rod to attract all the anti-immigrant vitriol. It's the same kind of dumb as "defund the police" - actively harmful.

And I strongly suspect that if I flew a Russian flag in the very liberal and tolerant Bay Area my house might just accidentally catch fire. Despite my right to do so.

Okay let's say it is murder (regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges)

What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?

What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?

It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.

>no charges

This seems a bit disingenuous

Empathy, that is what you appear to be missing in your equation. If I see someone about to chuck a baby off a cliff, I hope I step out of my normal comfort zone and do something. In that case it is probably pretty clear, and this one seems grey for some people, but for others, and myself include, ICE is affecting people's lives in ways that is unacceptable and we need to do something.

> park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?

> run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?

Do you seriously believe pulling a gun and killing somebody is an appropriate response to such actions?

Because if you do, that is a dangerously authoritan attitude.

Why would they find it inappropriate? It's fun for them and they're guaranteed to get away with it. All the opposition does is vote harder and ask nicely that the state not do it again.

Worst case, someone sues and it's paid by OPM. But having been the subject of brutality by CBP, I can tell you it's almost impossible to find a lawyer (all the ones I talked to had already tried and lost so many times they wouldn't take a case, though maybe you have better luck now since immigration law is in vogue) and if you do your chances of overcoming supremacy clause and immunities are next to nill. (Lady in a more egregious case but otherwise similar facts to mine, was raped via hand because the argument was there was drugs up there -- she lost even though there weren't any).

The reason why Trump chose ICE/CBP as his gestapo is precisely because they have excellent overlap of both being largely carved out from constitutional protections via both precedent and their situation as an executive nominally border facing police and the fact they answer to POTUS and can function as an army without running afoul of posse comitatus. Trump simply called checkmate on the populace by taking advantage of 100+ years of precedent, law, and jurisprudence that perfectly teed up the opportunity.

> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?

Protesting? Civil disobedience? Thought you had freedoms. Freedom means being met with an appropriate legal reaction in case your acts are illegal, not death.

I struggle to understand how you feel that in a free society people can't react to perceived injustices, and act in protest of it. A free society doesn't force everyone to bow down to the powers that be for fear of injury or death.

You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?

Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.

I understand what they mean.

Taliban, the people at the top are acting in a calculated and rational manner. That is why the US overthrew the Taliban to be replaced by the Taliban. They're not morons, and they are not impulsive at least at a high level. They are cold and calculated and know how to use calculated violence and appeal to the populace. You may dislike this is the case but with Taliban I feel this is indisputable, despite numerous tactical blunders on their end.

Pretti looked more like a raging lunatic. He knew CBP/ICE were homicidal maniacs and the slightest thing will set them off. He knew that acting like that will be interpreted by them as a 'shot at the King.' His actions looked impulsive and ultimately threw his life away getting very little for what he traded. And he basically submitted his head for execution after letting himself be disarmed, and I'm left wondering -- what was the point?

No one wants to be like the guy swinging at tail lights and spitting like a toddler with a cosmetic accessory gun tucked in their waistband which they then surrendered and offered their head for execution -- and for what?

Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.

The point is that you fight against injustice even in the face of state violence. Every movement that is a threat to existing power structures faces violence. Take a look at the labor movement in the US, the civil rights movement in the US, the anti-war movement in the US.

> Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.

The new movement is decentralized and doesn't rely on figureheads.

Also, you should read the news today if you think Pretti's death was in vain: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=general%20strike&tbm=n...

You've offered a lot of criticism - what do you think the solution is?

You dismiss the relevance of following others as irrelevant because it's all "decentralized".

Yet damn me for not offering a "solution."

You sir, are a hypocrite. If I'm damned for not offering you a solution, it can't simultaneously be true following my "solution" is irrelevant to third parties and everything waived away as "decentralized".

Conversation ended for bad faith practice, heads I win, tails you lose scenario.

So instead of replying with ways that you think the movement could combat injustice, you've decided to make this personal? It's okay to say "I don't know," but you probably shouldn't pretend to speak with authority on a subject that you completely fold on when questioned beyond surface level.

> bad faith

Projection if I've ever seen it.

Since I am done with this sack of shit, I'd like to make a note for others.

This individual has set a very clever logical fallacy trap.

He has required you to set an example for others to follow.

While claiming that following of others is irrelevant because it's 'decentralized.'

This means following you cannot be used for benefit for others. But yet not offering something to follow can still be used against you for the purpose of damning you. Another words, in this clever logical fallacy, your "solutions" can only be used against you.

It's a very cunning trap, and ultimately the goal here is to suggest there is a mark to your honor for not falling for it, which sets the snare for others to fall in. As soon as you call him out on this, he falls to the fallacy of "appeal to authority" by claiming you have none.

Unfortunately it takes a degree of intelligence to see past this, so you can see why this immoral character employs this deceptive strategy.

This is just 4chan-level drivel. It's wild to witness the thin veneer of intellectualism dissolve under scrutiny. There's no "cunning trap" here, I asked you a simple question which you still haven't answered. And instead you've just seized on a strawman and devolved into ad hominem.

>regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges

Disagreement from a class that refuses to disagree with their leader and no charges from the administration that committed the crime.

>What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?

Presumably they thought the problem was that they were in the way, for which driving off would resolve.

>What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?

The purpose of sending ICE there was to intimidate people, and dear leader was quite open about that. So we might rephrase the question as "why does a deliberate intimidation attempt lead people to feel intimidated?"

>It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.

Really? So then think of politics like sport, with the dems and repubs being two teams, and ICE being like fans from one team, and protesters are fans of the other, and they go out in the street to support their side. Now imagine that instead of your team losing being completely inconsequential, it could lead to you being poorer, your rights being taken away, etc. Now you understand politics, congratulations.

> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?

Maybe an order by another agent to drive off? But also, it's not hard to see why you can't understand it - because none of the questions are based in reality, all the descriptions are false/twisted, it's like "I don't understand why the fans of that team that lost celebrate the win" when in reality the team won, that's why, easy to understand

America started with the Boston Tea Party. If you don't like our allergy to authority that considers itself above us and our God given rights, you are free to leave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com