I really really dislike the tone Rogan has used recently when criticizing Trump like he wasn't directly responsible for getting him elected.
ICE
- Thread starter poochyena
- Start date
Lycanthropos
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
That last sentence is already more of the law than Trump knows
Here's Schumer coming out talking about training. So yeah, sorry, but he's Senate Minority Leader, if you're looking for some sort of indication of the party's direction it's pretty much him and Jeffries. The Dems should be considered pro-gestapo at this point. They don't want it to stop, they want it to be sustainable.
View: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mcfhhex26g2h
View: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mcfhhex26g2h
Have you ever heard of a false dilemma fallacy?
Explain why National Guard was called up during the wars of the last 20 years...
Of course, but since that's clearly not what's happening here I don't see the relevance. Happy to entertain arguments to the contrary, in the event anyone cares to attempt one.
The National Defense Act of 1916 authorizes overseas deployment of the national guard. Domestic deployment through federalization is covered under 10 us 12406.
There was certainly organized, armed and violent, resistance by both the Communist Party (KPD), who were trying to impose a Soviet-style revolution of their own, as well as by the Social-Democrats (SPD), who were trying to keep democracy. Also (unarmed) resistance by the Catholic Center party and others.
It is true that those different militias did not coordinate with each other or try for unified resistance.
Nice, so as President I could so something like activate the entire MN National Guard and send them to sit off the shore of Venezuela, thus leaving the entire state without a National Guard?
Thanks for playing. This is why Dems always loose. You don't think of the dumbest, weirdest, hacks.
I'm sorry, I was operating under the impression that you were asking a question about the law in good faith.
They want it to be conducted lawfully - which would require stopping a lot of the current practices.
I think it wrongly supposes that there is any lawful way to do this any of this. It's not even legal in the first place to demand proof of citizenship, only visiting or resident aliens can be required to show proof of status. It certainly isn't legal to retaliate against local people and businesses that are supporting the impacted communities, but they're doing that too. I think all training could hope to achieve is make the illegality a little less brazen so it's a little easier for SCOTUS to wink at. It's like I said, Dems don't want to stop this, they don't want to get rid of the gestapo, they want to make it sustainable.
So we’re all in agreement here, the Dem leaders want it to be conducted. Glad that’s cleared up.
Which has what exactly to do with training?
ICE and CBP aren’t doing all these things because they lack training. They’re doing all these things because that’s why the joined ICE and CBP in the first place, and there’s no accountability or any consequences for doing them, other than to get out of it exactly what they hoped they would by joining ICE and CBP.
That’s why I hate the whole training shtick. It’s another example of Democrats being either too dumb or too duplicitous. Neither of which is acceptable.
If you want to reform something:
- Change the incentives.
- Set clear expectations.
- Apply strict accountability.
Training? Jesus. Christ. F*cking Democrats. Just absolute f*cking twats.
Yes. Those things are illegal, and for ICE to be acting lawfully they would all need to stop. But it's definitely the case that there's a lawful way of arresting and deporting people who don't have legal permission to be here. Democrats are trying to avoid giving the impression you are that they don't think anyone should be deported under any circumstances, because voters do not agree with that view and if Democrats can't gain some credibility on this subject voters are going to keep electing right wing lunatics.
Those are the caveats for deploying the NG domestically. The bar for foreign deployments is AFAIK close to zero.
This is completely false.
https://www.fwd.us/news/new-poll-ov...ion-for-dreamers-paired-with-border-security/
If I was Governor of Minneapolis I would send the State guard to start setting up hesco barriers, razor wire and checkpoints to protect schools from Trump ICE forces. I would also have public school buses having 1 or 2 soldiers riding along to provide protection for the students and provide overwatch while they exit the bus.
I would have a meeting with the state guard and tell them they are here to serve and protect the people, anyone unwilling step aside. Unfortunately no one is going to help us. Democrats are stepping aside hoping to avoid trouble when 2028/2029 comes around.
I would have a meeting with the state guard and tell them they are here to serve and protect the people, anyone unwilling step aside. Unfortunately no one is going to help us. Democrats are stepping aside hoping to avoid trouble when 2028/2029 comes around.
I wasn't asking about the law. I was underscoring what I thought was my point: The Federal Government can hijack the National Guard, and thus arguments about using the National Guard to protect a state from the Fed are moot.
And this isn't some sort of forgivable lapse on the Dems part because we've been through this whole dance with police violence and it was completely useless there because the police just ignored the stuff they didn't want to do but got the added funding anyway. Since Schumer was around for that fiasco I don't think he deserves a generous interpretation, in all likelihood he's actually fine with everything that's going on other than getting yelled at and expected to do his job, and what he wants is a fig leaf so he stops getting yelled at.
Its not entirely a moot point. There is the real although mostly unpalatable, possibility that the National Guard ignores federal mandates and stays loyal to the Governor. Of course that would almost certainly lead to a firefight between Local Guardsman and the Federal ICE or whoever agents. I'd like to think that no one wants bloodshed on that level so it probably wouldn't happen. I also never thought I'd live to see armed federal agents executing civilians in public because they look at them wrong but here we are.
Jonathan Ross is a decade-long ICE veteran instructor. Training is not the problem--but "training" is.
1. That's not a refutation. Voters supporting certain legalization approaches is not the same as no one should ever be deported under any circumstances.
2. The article is from 2022. I think subsequent events cast some doubt on how accurate that polling might be. Voters were not turned off by Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric, and this time it wasn't an electoral college fluke.
Democratic leaders want to clean up the practices, because they're institutionalists and don't want to do the hard work to implement a more lasting change.
The "more lasting change" in question is disbanding ICE and distributing its activities to other departments (often departments that had such responsibilities prior to the DHS being created), as someone elsewhere in this thread (or one of the other ones) laid out in good detail.
The irony here is that a lot of these Democratic leaders were around when the DHS was created on the premise that practices current at that time were not working. The same is true here. Thus the same remedy could absolutely apply. And that's even without making the case (as I'd be happy to do) that the formation of the DHS was a mistake in the first place, based on a false misunderstanding of root causes.
AOC reiterated yesterday that her short-term goal is to cut ICE funding and the next goal after that is to "abolish ICE". That's the correct path forward, IMO, though if you could do the latter before the former, even better (though unlikely). No problem existed that required the gigantic increase to ICE's budget. And, per above, ICE itself fundamentally fails repeatedly in its mission (a mission which needs to be redefined anyway).
At this point MAGAGOP has broken so much of the federal government that any Democratic not talking about significant institutional change should they get back in power (and using every lever to obstruct the current Administration until they do) is merely enabling our current fascist overlords.
Well, at least we'd get another example of the originalists on the Court tying themselves into knots again to support anything Trump wants to do.
No, we can't leave the analysis there. Because if they stopped the illegal stuff there's not enough enforcement work to keep the increased workforce busy. The illegal stuff is the job because there's not enough of anything else to be the job. So keeping them around is necessarily a declaration of intent to do the illegal gestapo stuff.
Which was working fine, apart from the fact that the enforcement was already monstrous there. Too well, in fact, because it's already been pushed beyond the "crops rot in fields" threshold.
I think to get that impression you have to somehow think that the only policy dial is cruelty. Had you bothered to ask, or read some of my previous posts (I have written voluminously on this), you'd see my stance is that the US structurally requires immigrant labor across a number of industries and the main reason it's largely undocumented is not because people want to be scofflaws but rather because businesses want a disempowered labor pool that won't go to OSHA or sue for wage theft. It is wealth, not migrants, who is served by lack of enforcement. My proposal would be to look at the labor needs and issue the visas needed to meet those needs. Want to reduce undocumented immigration? Then start stamping passports.
"Abolish ICE" is currently polling at 46/43, a hair's breadth from breaking through into a majority for the first time. If the choice is between whatever this is and nothing, nothing is leading. It's 77/12 among Dems, and 47/35 among independents. Where do you think it's going to be when ICE inevitably reenacts the Kent State massacre?
Do you have any data that shows voters are against not deporting people? Sure, voters may say they support deporting criminals, but do voters explicitly say they don't support keeping them in jail in the US?
Supporting deportation does not meaning being against alternatives. If asked, "do you like hot dogs or pizza", voting for one doesn't mean you dislike the other.
Polling isn't inaccurate, people just changed their minds. Democrats are unable to comprehend the idea that people's minds can be changed. When Trump ran on an anti-immigration platform, and no alternatives were presented, anti-immigration sentiment grew.
When there is no explicitly pro-immigration platform, then there will naturally be less support for immigration. Voters follow leaders, but democrats refuse to be leaders.
Sure, but, Joe Rogan is one of those fascism-whisperers that got us into this situation, if even he sees ICE as being unacceptably Gestapo-like, that's some really bad news for Trump, as that suggests that a significant portion of the MAGA base is horrified by what Trump is doing now. It's seems like shooting suburban soccer moms might not have been the next logical step and doubling down on escalation after having done that might be even less so. We can only hope that the chaos continues to convince people that the elder signs we are seeing do, in fact, indicate elder horrors.
On one hand, sure, that's annoying. On the other hand, it's the natural thing that happens when people realize that they might, in fact, be the baddies. Which means it might be a sign the fever is breaking.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you in principle. I just think it's a political loser, and winning elections is important. If people win on this agenda I won't be mad that my political forecast was wrong. But looking at the rise of right wing anti-immigrant parties across basically all western democracies makes me skeptical the public can be sold on this.
I think there's two main problems with that. The first is that politics without some sort of guiding principles, some sort of north star, leads to figures with spines of jello like Schumer, who are contemptible purely on that basis even if you agree with them most of the time. Moreover it commits the sin of skating where the puck has been. "Abolish ICE" polled at 20% in 2024, it's polling at 46% now. Things are only getting worse and polls lag. Are you saying there's no room at all to be leaders here, even when opinion has almost arrived at the point where it doesn't even require leadership?
Seems to me the case you make to the electorate is "immigration enforcement must never come at the expense of citizens rights, and ICE has lost the public's trust because that's exactly how it operates. as Joe Rogan said, we can't be a "papers please" country, because that is a betrayal of the freedom we all cherish. we can't eliminate enforcement, but enforcement must never mean shooting US citizens in the street, because the instant we do that we're worse than the problems we're trying to prevent. we have to start fresh.".
Agreed, but the "most likely" is you get some percentage that say go with Fed, some percentage that say go with State.
Lots of reasons they would choose one over the other. Its a complex situation at the level of the individual soldier.
All you really need is enough loyal to the Fed being the ones that control the armories and munition depots. The rest won't have much else they can do...
Remember, "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses".
Yes. I am saying asking politicians to be leaders who shape public opinion is a fool's errand and it doesn't work. By all means people not running for office can try to change public opinion if they think it's wrong. But politicians are in a different line of work that requires cowardly pandering to the public's current views.
Guiding principles are good, but if you have 15 different guiding principles you're not going to be able to get enough people to agree. Democrats need to decide on two or maybe three big things they want to accomplish next time they hold power, and with anything that doesn't make the top 2-3 just say what voters in that state/district want to hear.
Ok so how do you explain the spike in anti-immigration sentiment in 2024? Its just a coincidence people started to hate immigrants more as Trump campaigned on immigrant hatred?
And here is any more proof that what politicians do changes minds
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/the-cost-of-playing-defense-on-immigration
And I want to add too, its not even so much about changing minds, but to inform people. People care a lot more about supporting immigrants when they learn what terrible things are happening to them. Its not even about convincing people, its about informing them about what is happening.
I am saying asking politicians to be leaders who shape public opinion is a fool's errand and it doesn't work.
Absolutely wild to read this while living through Trump's America.
Trump shifted sentiments significantly in a bunch of areas, the polling is very clear on that. It was universally bad or very nearly so, but I don't think we need to be afraid of principles like "don't shoot soccer moms in the face". That's something to be open and proud about.
"They did it, we all know they did it, and now they're covering up the investigation just like they're covering up Epstein. That's why Trump wanted ICE expanded, it's not for immigrants, it's for you and me. He knows he can't do all the stuff he wants without goons to come into our towns and kill us so that's exactly what ICE is for. And if it's not for that, why do they keep doing it? Are you ready for when they come to your home town? Do you know how to deal with pepper spray? Do you know how to deal with a gunshot? Because they're coming for you."
I'm understanding where a lot of your stances are coming from now that you've said this is how you think of it. And that is not a complement.
How many principles do you think you need to understand government death squads is bad? If you were to make a list of your most important principles, how far down would you put that?
The entire country is terrified they're going to be next. Trump is clear he wants to expand this. People, particularly in Dem districts (skews urban) and states, know they are targets. They're printing legal advice cards and 3D printing whistles right now because that's literally the only thing they can do that's not nothing. How is stopping that not top of mind?
Narcissists can never fail. They can only be failed.
Joe Rogan may not be the narcissist in current American culture, but he is a narcissist.
Because they're the primary combat reserve for the Army and USAF and failure to deploy them unfairly burdened the rather small Active forces. Invasion, rebellion and inability to execute Federal law with civilian forces are other legal reasons for activation. When Progressives get elected the Guard serves their missions. When right wingers get elected ditto:
https://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Documents/FEDERALIZATION-OF-GUARD-UP-TO-2025.pdf
The Guard (nd Reserve also exist to reduce the tax burden vs maintaining a force permanently sized for large nation-state wars.
Deploying the Guard to combat missions was not at all controversial after the (now long forgotten except as video game fodder) Viet Nam conflict when rich kids got into NG fighter units they knew would never deploy. Granted, flying Century-series anything was respectably dangerous but it sure ain't dodging Soviet SAMs and AAA which in those days were competently manned. Some Guard troops (~9000) deployed to SEA with over 100 KIA, but in those ancient times casualty expectations were conditioned by WWII and Korea so that didn't stand out.
Calling the Guard to active duty deployments removes (some of) the privileged using Guard service as a dodge to avoid unpopular wars. Mere training doesn't compare to combat experience and unblooded units tend to fare badly, especially fresh conscripts who get the shit knocked out of them during their learning curve:
https://warontherocks.com/2013/12/drafted-armies-are-self-killing-machines/
Not even NIxon would risk political destruction by activating the Guard which besides a haven for rich kids was a very popular escape for college-age men wanting a reliable draft exemption. That did get the USAF (which didn't draft or need to) some highly educated Airmen. Lower test scorers went to the Army which was and remains something of a dumping ground due to its vast number of non-combat low-tech but vital personnel slots.
I'd rather have SecFor or MPs doing crowd control than civilian cops. Cops aren't subject to the UCMJ nor constantly briefed what can happen when you screw up. If police had to swear to obey a similar code (which could include much of the UCMJ suitably modified) that enforced they'd be far more professional. Soldiers do bad things sometimes but they have a chain of command who HATE negative attention (especially when Congressional feathers are ruffled) and are not accountable to local corrupt politicians.
And now we have video of ICE dragging a disabled woman on her way to the hospital out of her car. Because, this is what fascists do.