I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.
So should we model our immigration system on that of those countries? My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have. Syria and Iraq (to name two of your examples) are certainly not what I would describe as countries based on rule of law. As you yourself point out, in Iraq the police liked you, so they let you go. I do not want to see such a system in the USA.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying. No one should be deported to prison camps in third countries (a la CECOT). Immigration should be made easier. Executives should face more serious consequences for hiring undocumented workers. I agree. My basic premise starts from the fact that, as a country of laws, we must first enforce the laws that we have, then create new laws that reflect the society we want. Currently we have laws subject to haphazard enforcement and the color (blue or red) of the party in the White House.
Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.
I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.
Can you name another country in which I can enter without inspection, commit a crime, and then be released, all without having anyone ask, "what is your basis for being in this country"?
It is not a natural born right of every person born in North and South America to come to the United States. It is not a natural right of every person already inside the USA to remain in the USA.
We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not cooperate with the federal government regarding immigration, meaning that anyone in these cities who interacts with the police or justice system (generally speaking, in most cases) will not be reported for being in the country without documentation. This means that the federal government has fewer means of detaining individuals without documentation in a safe manner, even those convicted of serious crimes. We see the result of these policies now.
There cannot be a comprehensive system of worker's rights when millions of workers are present without documentation. We cannot support a higher minimum wage and, at the same time, take in millions of workers who will work for less. It is a violation of the rights of Americans not to have a real and effective border, and for immigration laws not to be enforced.
Not the author of the comment you replied to but I don’t believe that is the point. No one is saying that it is not important to listen to experts, but in fact many experts tried to say these things and were quickly shut down by the main stream media for not going along with what we were supposed to believe.
There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.
The warrant of the judge's arrest strongly suggests that she did not think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz and took actions to prevent it from happening.
I don't blame them. If I were them, I would do the same thing. However, as someone with the ability to vote and influence (to a very small degree) public policy, I would prefer we move toward a system in which strong labor rights exist in this country, and this is simply impossible in an environment in which employers are free to hire labor off the books for "pennies". To be clear, I think both political parties in the US are terrible, and all of this debate serves the interests of the employers that benefit from this situation.
Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? As a non-expert I am curious. I am continually amazed by how much authority is delegated to the states and local jurisdictions in the United States (e.g. matters of marriage, property, voting, etc.). As I understand even citizenship was handled by local courts up until very recently.
I agree with you. A quick search suggests that there are 11 million undocumented people in the United States, or about 3% of the population. A healthy society does not harbor 11 million people without documentation so they can be exploited by employers for cheap labor, not given proper health care and labor rights.
> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States).
So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job, that is, to enforce federal immigration law.
Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The judge confronted them and was visibly upset. She directed the agents elsewhere and then immediately told Ruiz and his counsel to exit via a private hallway. The attorney prosecuting the case against Ruiz and his (alleged) victims were present in the court and confused when his case was never called, even though everyone was present in the court.
What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?
Tangential, and not a train station, but one of the best Turkish şiş kebabs I ever had was at Esenler Otogar (bus station) in Istanbul. The station is something out of a horror movie, but if you go up to the second floor there are some fantastic little places to eat.
I mean construction in the mathematical sense. If you believe, for example, that the rational numbers exist, then it is easy to construct the real numbers.
Very roughly, we look at the set of all sequences of rational numbers that converge in a specific way (technically, all Cauchy sequences) and call this the "set of real numbers" (technically, after taking an appropriate equivalence class, since intuitively multiple sequences can converge to the same real number). [1] has a few other constructions. This is very different from a program, which has its own definition.
Yup! Programs are assumed to have finite length, in the sense that the program must have a finite description. Of course, it may use recursion or include a loop that runs forever, for example.
It is a good question. I can say that, briefly, you have to take two things for granted. 1, that the real numbers can be constructed, and 2, that the number of computable numbers is countable because the number of programs describing them is countable. Therefore there must exist uncomputable numbers (and in fact, 'almost all' real numbers are uncomputable).
There are not countless examples. Instead of "hiring of people on the basis of race" I may more accurately say "using race as a decisive factor in the consideration of an application resulting in its acceptance or rejection" which also happens to be illegal.
From the journalism department at CU [1]:
> Our commitment, should we be successful with this application, is to hire someone from the BIPOC community
From the geography department at CU [1]:
> Our aim is specifically to hire a Black, Indigenous, or Latinx faculty member
From ethnic studies at UC [1]:
> We have an urgent and qualified need for BIPOC femme/women of color faculty in an Africana Studies focus who will contribute to the social science division thematic cluster hire in racism and racial inequality.
From psychology dept. at U Washington [2]:
> I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [redacted] noted)
> At a faculty meeting, someone whose name is redacted “informed faculty that the Hiring Committee had three outstanding candidates and so they used DEI to distinguish and select a first offer"
In academia, there are more qualified people than positions, on an extreme level in fact. I agree, we have to distinguish people. We must distinguish on intangible characteristics sometimes. Suppose I am hiring for a position in an department and there are three finalists. They are all extremely qualified. What is an acceptable way to distinguish people? "Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie, I believe she will make a better colleague and mentor to our undergraduates. I suggest we accept her." Compare with the following. "Alice is a black, homosexual, woman unlike Bob and Charlie, who are white, presumably homosexual men. Our university has a stated DEI policy promoting the acceptance of more women and BIPOC faculty. Therefore we should admit Alice." Do you see the difference?
We do not need to enter a deep philosophical debate about what is "merit" and its many dimensions. I agree with you, it's complicated. But the issue is universities are explicitly discriminating and ranking candidates and students on the basis of DEI factors. We know this because, as in the CU case I have linked to already in other comments, their very own notes say so! This is just the tip of the iceberg.
My most charitable reading of your comment is that the DEI policies were simply grossly misunderstood by the department in this case. Therefore, it would seem that an unintended consequence of DEI policies has been to foster the scenarios it was designed to prevent.