[flagged]
- No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
- Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
- Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
- This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents.
- Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
- Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
- Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.
Look, I agree that this is a poorly implemented policy. But it's obvious and inarguable that the clear intent is to prevent people from following ICE around with drones, whether to surveil them (and thus perhaps warn others of their approach; despite the fact that there is no logical reason for anyone to be concerned about their approach beyond actual law breakers who legally should not be in the country) or harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone).
> Government officials should be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
Sure. Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not; in particular they are specifically entrusted with the use of force that would almost never be accepted from civilians.
> Their objective was to prevent legally permitted public recording of these operations
No, there is no such objective, because even if enforced as described this is laughably far from actually doing any such thing.
In particular, you can still record from the ground. And if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.
Again, this is about flying drones, and people are crying literal fascism over it. This is technology that didn't exist when the actual Fascists were in power, and is still only feasibly accessible to a privileged few.
> You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such.
No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles, and people who are mistakenly identified as such may suffer as a result. And that it is therefore better that they don't have the idea in their heads that it should be morally okay to harass law enforcement officers, or to try to create an information network to obstruct lawful work.
The recurring pattern with all of these things people complain about with how ICE operates, that I've noticed, is that every single one of them is a response to how they've been unlawfully interfered with previously.
> Given that many people in that status are guilty of civil infractions
If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.
This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country. To allow this is to deny the nation's right to determine who is and is not allowed to stay. It is, in fact, definitionally "open borders" policy. And with this you do not have a nation any more, only lines on a map.
> the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate
This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.
Similarly, any law enforcement officer may (from what I have had to research over the last several months; these things are not that much different from Canada, frankly) legally order you out of a vehicle on "reasonable suspicion"; and citizens are legally not entitled to interpose themselves physically between a law enforcement officer and the target with the purpose of interfering with law enforcement action (or persist in doing so after being advise that they are in the way). The fact that said citizen is recording with a cell phone at the time does not change that, any more than shouting political slogans during a hold-up would exonerate a bank robber.
If you interfere in such a manner, you thereby commit a crime in full sight of an officer, and are therefore a valid candidate for arrest. And resisting arrest generally justifies physical force, no matter how bad it might look on a citizen's cell phone recording. (Activists specifically train to resist arrest in ways that make the response look bad, despite being completely legally justified, and always having been completely legally justified, in many other countries as well as the US.)
> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.
Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.
Exactly. They desire to prevent their actions from being observed and recorded. They cannot exert physical restraint over a drone like they can a person on the ground. That means they lose the ability to restrict you from recording their activities.
> harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone)
As I stated before, there are already laws to cover this situation. No need for the hidden, roving, no-fly zones.
> Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not
You and I disagree here. Law enforcement should be held to higher legal standards in everything they do BECAUSE they are "entrusted with the use of force". That put's them in a position of authority over anyone who isn't entrusted with the same governmental power. They should not be afforded extra legal protections, they should have extra legal obligations. I'm not talking about regulations around scene control for public safety.
> No, there is no such objective
This is either a naive or malicious take. I'll be generous and assume it's naive. They don't want people to surveil them. If you are an individual on the ground you likely are within the "reach out and touch them" space and they absolutely will suppress you if you are in a position to record, in detail, their activities. There are plenty of recorded interactions of just this thing happening. A drone operator can be in a stand-off location recording and less likely to have then physically interrupt the recording. That drone operator has legal restrictions on what they can do and violating those restrictions is already legally enforceable, no hidden, roving, no-fly zone needed.
> if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.
This is, again, a naive take. They will obstruct your ability to record their activities as much as possible. On the ground that means they can simply stand between you and what they rest of their group are doing. Or quite likely they will physically harass you until your recording is stopped in one way or another. Recording from the air makes in much harder for them to obstruct your recording. With ground or air you still have to contend with non-purposeful obstructed angles of observation, with air you have less chance of purposeful obstructions.
> No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles
As with any group you will always have multiple, sometimes opposing, motivations. I'm positive you can find people who just want to chase around ICE vehicles (or presumed ICE vehicles). But you are using a (smaller) portion of people that are rule breakers already as a rationalization for severe government overreach. And they you are decrying people calling that behavior "fascist" as being out of touch because... drones didn't exist when the term fascist came into use?
What a large chunk of the general populous wants is accountability, proportionality, civility, and respect (for humanity). The tools they have to attempt to forward that agenda are limited as the government has a legal monopoly on use of force. Observation and recording of activities to ensure the government isn't acting improperly, or document when they are, is one of the few tools available. For government agents to do everything in their power to take away that tool is a clear indicator that they are being improper and don't want evidence of that behavior.
> If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.
This is a mischaracterization of reality. You can legally entry the country and then have that legal authorization revoked. Being in the country from that point is a civil matter, not criminal. Illegally crossing the border is a criminal matter. The current government makes zero distinction in the level of force used in either matter. Being in the United States illegally doesn't absolve the government from respecting your legal rights as those aren't just for citizens and legal residents. Simple violation of the law does not excuse the excessive force being used here.
> This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country.
I actually don't disagree. I'm not an advocate for people illegally residing in the United States. I also happen to think that people residing here illegally are subject to the saw protections of law as everyone living here legally. I think they are entitled to basic human dignity. I think they deserve proportional legal enforcement of our immigration laws. I would include compassion, but a government doesn't really mesh with the idea of compassion, that more for the populous or individuals to extend towards their fellow humans.
> This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.
The level of force being applied is in no way proportionate to situation. These are people living here without legal authority and running away from raids. These are not criminal gangs attacking law enforcement. Those ICE officers are individuals exerting legally authorized deadly force against unarmed suspects at an alarming rate. By your logic, the only proper response would be for the oppressed to escalate.
Again, you are missing that the response from officers is disproportionate to the crime. Unless perhaps the "crime" was disrespecting their authority and they seek to teach you the consequences. Shooting someone because you decided to throw yourself in front of their moving car is not a proportionate response to a unarmed, non-violent person trying to get away from an armed and belligerent cluster of government officials.
>> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.
> Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.
You mis-quoted me. I was referring to identification of ICE vehicles. My implication was that having a group of supposed law enforcement who refuse to identify their vehicles, refuse to wear uniforms, wear full face masks, and refuse to properly identify themselves seems like a great way to provoke bad outcomes. It had nothing, directly, to do with discussing "level of force". We were discussing drones and the governments heavy-hands reaction to drones being used against them (they already use them against anyone they deem a target).
It's obvious that you and I have very differing opinions of how a citizen-authorized government should be applying it's legal monopoly on the use of force.
1/3 of this country is quite happy with the level of brutality and malice on display and for that they should be ashamed. Another 1/3 of this country couldn't be bothered to even vote and for that they should be equally, if not more, ashamed.
My personal politics are generally not something I discuss much but perhaps it deserves qualifying here. I think the two major parties in this country are both mostly morally corrupt. They have lost their way and no longer attempt to represent the interests of the populous. Things will never get better with things the way they are as both major parties are fully captured by monied interests. I generally want the government to stay out of my life and simply provide for the common defense, provide shared infrastructure and services, and provide a social safety net for it's citizens. I don't support violence except in self-defense. I think people should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies. I don't personally care about your race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or any other label we use to segment people into the ins and the outs. We are all people and we should all respect each others right to self-determination. I think we all have an obligation to each other to preserve Earth as it's our shared home. Anyway, I guess I'm trying to head off the "typical Democrat" or "typical Liberal" counter. I'm neither of those things. But, if we ever took time to actually communicate with one another, we'd see that everyone has nuance and applying labels hides that.
This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.
Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?
This is not a valid comparison.
Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?
What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations?
Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective?
Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions.
re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens?
Most of them probably are citizens.
Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle?
The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country?
People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle.
If and when that happens, we can talk about this.
> What does this mean?
It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen.
> Most of them probably are citizens.
I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy.
> the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here.
> the current immigration enforcement regime
This use of language is poisoning the well.
> they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws.
Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should?
When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.
I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive.
> the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".
It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing people are objecting to, ultimately stems from "enforcing immigration law". Nobody would have gotten shot had the people enforcing immigration law been permitted to enforce immigration law in a normal manner. As demonstrated by the fact that it exclusively happened in places where they were interfered with to an extreme degree. Similarly, people only got pulled out of cars because they refused to get out of cars when they were under arrest; they only got arrested for refusing lawful orders; they only faced lawful orders because they were physically obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. All of those things are normal consequences that could be demonstrated on a smaller scale, across time and in countries across the developed world.
ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. This is objective fact that is trivially researchable and which I have repeatedly cited; yet you and others have repeatedly attempted to deny or ignore it, or the logical consequences of the fact.
The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.
No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things.
> should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.
I did not say that the consequences include any such thing. When you phrase your overall complaint this way, you imply untrue things. I have explained countless times already, yet you continue to claim untrue things about what I have said, in a manner that ignores the meaning of what I have said. Please stop.
But sure, since you seem to be triggered by that specific word I'll restate it for you: You have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution of American citizens by government agents.
If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
> It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide
In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them.
This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution
This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications
I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.
I am "glossing over" your justification chain because while it is [unfortunately] legally relevant, it fails to capture the pertinent details of the situations. Specifically, the ICE officers in question seemed eager to embrace these justifications for how they can summarily execute people who are frustrating them rather than engaging in deescalation and restraint expected of supposed "public servants". And no, this dynamic certainly did not start with Trump (eg the multitude of incidents of local police officers summarily executing Blacks). But like everything with Trump it's been cranked to 11.
But sure, "there is no discussion to be had". That was basically the warning of my original comment, about your original comment full of leading questions, to others. In general I do understand there are plenty of people in other countries chanting "Death to America(ns)!" who will not be reasoned with. Easy to do when it's not your own society on the line.
Normal citizens can't get full no fly zones and are subject to even more invasive tactics. The comparison to normal citizens highlights that what was done here was far in excess of what is done for normal citizens and seems counter to their overall argument.
If a stranger told you your baby was ugly, you would think the stranger was an asshole even if everyone in your family agreed that the baby is hideous.
Enjoy living in your country.