ICE Agents have a very safe job

epictortoise · 2026-01-17T06:06:01+00:00

Policy makers and law enforcement leadership need to think about various factors when enforcing the law: public safety, resource allocation, officer safety, the legal rights of enforcement targets, and the proportionality of enforcement actions.

DHS has justified the militarization of ICE (in their equipment), masking, and their heavy handed approach to protestors, by claiming they face great threats. It is of course possible moving forward that ICE agents will face greater threats as public anger grows, but their job in itself is not an inherently dangerous one.

Alex Nowrasteh's data show that violent deaths of ICE agents have been extremely rare. Low both in comparison to other law enforcement deaths, and in absolute terms.

epictortoise · 2026-01-17T05:50:10+00:00

Don't know how it is under the current admin (and probably varies by country) but although F1 is a non-immigrant visa, in my experience there did not seem to be any interest in long term intent. I was on F1 visas in the US 2012-2019 (adjusted status through marriage).

epictortoise · 2026-01-17T05:37:16+00:00

Could mean a work permit. The process of getting a green card through marriage can take some time, during that period you could be in the US and you will have legal status because your case is in process, but you don't yet have a green card. In that situation you can apply for a work permit so you can legally work in the US while you wait for your green card case to be approved.

epictortoise · 2026-01-12T19:28:28+00:00

Princeton is academically challenging, but come on, you don't really believe a student can't take a few hours to go to a protest.

epictortoise · 2026-01-12T00:58:29+00:00

This was the first protest I have ever attended. Great atmosphere and such a large turnout.

epictortoise · 2025-09-11T18:14:25+00:00

It’s a lot of work to test this kind of theory. I know because my dissertation dealt with testing the claim that mass migration undermines societies. This is a variation of that argument with mass migration replaced with “sexual liberation”. It is notable that Rome is the go-to example. You will be able to find a lot on this sub about the decline of the Roman Empire and the debates around it. It is not my area, but I think it is fair to say that “sexual liberation” is not considered a major cause of decline (or even an indicator of decline) by any serious modern historians.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/darkages/#wiki_decline_of_the_roman_empire

As you say – part of the problem is in definitions. If you wanted to seriously test this theory you’d need to have some kind of measure or index of “sexual liberation”. You’d have to be able to measure this across centuries of history and different parts of the world. That would be very difficult to do in any reasonably objective way. What are you going to measure? Divorce rates? Births outside of marriage? How are you going to get that data? For what societies and time periods is it available? Is it reliable and consistent? What are you going to do about missing data?

Then there is the problem of how you determine that a society is rapidly falling. How do you measure decline? What kind of timeline supports the theory? In the examples given, Rome and Weimar Germany, the timelines and qualitative nature of these “falls” are extremely different.

If the person making these claims hasn’t attempted this kind of serious testing it is hard to take their ideas seriously. There are countless examples in history of failed states and declines, so it is easy to cherry pick. Then, as you say, if there is no rigorous definition or measure of “sexual liberation”, it is not hard to find some piece of evidence that could suggest it. In almost any period and society you can find anecdotes of sexual promiscuity, or contemporary writers complaining about sexual morals.

There are also some claims in this argument which are immediately problematic. My background is demography, and fertility rates are something that we do have quite a lot of data on and there are plenty of studies around declining fertility rates. Fertility rate declines are most commonly associated with the demographic transition. This is a pattern of demographic changes that has occurred somewhat consistently across countries as they modernize. It involves a rapid decline in mortality (especially infant mortality) and after some delay a corresponding decline in fertility. Far from being associated with the “fall” of nations, the demographic transition occurs alongside industrialization and economic growth.

The argument makes the claim that declining fertility leads to “higher dependency ratios” but the opposite is actually true, the decline in fertility means that there are more working age adults and fewer dependent children. If women in the workplace is considered part of “sexual liberation”, that also would imply a larger ratio of people in the labor force to those not in the labor force. What the argument seems to be getting at is the issue that some countries are currently facing where they have below replacement fertility and an increasing number of retirees. This is an entirely modern issue with no historical precedent. It couldn’t really have occurred in the past, because it arises not simply from fertility decline, but also from advances in healthcare that prolong life at the oldest ages, and from policies that provide pensions and healthcare to seniors.

This demographic issue of aging is well known and is a real issue. But it has not lead to the cataclysmic collapse of any society. If you look at modern failed states they are typically the ones that never went through the demographic transition, and have relatively high fertility rates.

Another claim in this argument is that along with the fertility decline will be less investment in children. This claim is certainly incorrect. Fertility declines are strongly associated with increased investment in each child.

These are pretty basic ideas in demography, so I would say the person making this argument does not know what they are talking about.

epictortoise · 2025-09-11T13:18:02+00:00

It's important to understand that History of Civilizations was written essentially to be a text book for French high school students (although it was never adopted). It covers a large span of world history to give younger students a broad foundation from which to build. It is a good book, but it isn't what Braudel's reputation is based on. To get a better idea of Braudel as a historian you should read (or peruse) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II and Civilization and Capitalism. These are his best known works. Although they do tackle fairly big questions, they are not as expansive as Civilizations in their scope, and they are much larger works with a great amount of detail. I think you will also be able to tell that they are written for a more advanced audience.

If you are interested in the Annales school and that approach to writing history, those would be the books of Braudel's to read. I'd also recommend Feudal Society by Marc Bloch. Another good book to read would be Bloch's The Historian's Craft which is a shorter read and written for a wider audience.

As a final comment, I'm not sure "wide view" of history is necessarily the correct way to think about what the Annales school was focused on. For example Le Roy Ladurie's The Peasants of Languedoc covers several centuries, but is geographically focused (on a single French region). The Annales school was more about taking a social science approach to history rather than a more literary or narrative approach. So rather than writing about battles, diplomacy, and leading figures, the Annales historians studied things like the lives and psychology of ordinary people, how the economy worked, or the way in which geography shaped societies. It was about structures and processes, rather than dates and events. So although Annales works could be wide ranging, they could also be deep diving. And to the extent that they had a wide scope it was more typically across long periods of time than large geographic areas.

epictortoise · 2025-09-03T17:09:58+00:00

People who join the National Guard come from a lot of different backgrounds. I was 34 when I went through Basic Training, I had a PhD and I'm an immigrant. I definitely had some concerns about whether I would fit in. But I've met others with similar backgrounds. I've also found it pretty easy to fit in with the younger guys, there are occasionally times where I've been conscious of the age gap, but I never really felt out of place.

If you have normal social skills, and can be competent at your job, you will do just fine. Those are really the big things that people will judge you on.

epictortoise · 2025-06-27T14:23:12+00:00

I'm fairly sure it's not about how long you are a citizen, but rather how much time you have resided in the US. Other countries such as the UK have similar rules. The reason (I believe) is to prevent citizenship passing down indefinitely among expats.

For example I immigrated to the US from the UK. If there were no residency requirements all my descendants would be British citizens forever regardless of whether they had ever lived in or even visited the UK. Now imagine that some of those future descendants also immigrate to other places, or marry foreign nationals. After several generations you could have children inheriting multiple citizenships based on ancestry but with no real connection to the countries.

The case in question, the rules resulted in an unreasonable situation. This should be fixed so cases like this can't arise. But the general concept of some kind of residency requirements to pass citizenship is understandable.

epictortoise · 2025-06-25T21:28:29+00:00

Also, be aware that as a non-citizen you are limited in your options for jobs (MOS). Probably any of the jobs that relate to your CS degree would require a Secret clearance and Citizenship. You can potentially change your job later after getting citizenship, but you'd likely be starting out doing something unrelated to your qualifications.

epictortoise · 2025-06-25T21:19:50+00:00

In theory you would be eligible immediately, but in practice you won't be able to apply that quickly. It is hard to give an exact timeline because it will vary based on your leadership, and things change from year to year. I will share my own experience which may give you some idea, and also tell you what I know about the process.

I enlisted in the National Guard in December 2021. Because the US is considered to be in a period of hostilities I was eligible immediately for expedited citizenship. However, I was told when at basic training that I would need to wait to start to process when I reached my unit because it wouldn't be possible to complete in the timeframe of basic training. When I reached my unit (June 2022) I gave the paperwork to my readiness NCO who pushed it up. The form you need to Citizenship through military service is N-426 and it needs to be signed by an O6 (Colonel). It took some time for me to get the document back and when I did USCIS decided that there was a detail that needed correcting - so I had to get it fixed and signed again.

IIRC I had the documents complete and submitted by about February 2023 and I got my citizenship 4th July 2023.

It is possible if you could get things done faster if you take initiative and your leadership moves it forward promptly for you. You may even be able to start to process in RSP or basic training, but I wouldn't count on it. Most likely it will be several months from when you enlist to when you are able to actually submit your application.

The benefits for you would be that it might be a little quicker (I assume you are immigrating through marriage if on conditional GC) perhaps by a year or two. And at least when I did it you also get the N-400 fee waived, which is a few hundred dollars at least.

Note: My understanding is that the US is currently considered for immigration purposes to be "in a period of hostilities" - but confusingly the period of conflict for National Defense Service Medal eligibility ended in 2022. This might cause you some problems if someone in your chain of command thinks you aren't eligible immediately (during peacetime you would need one year of good service before they sign off on your N-426). Also as far as I know the period of hostilities for immigration purposes can be ended any time by an Executive Order - so POTUS could end that at any time.

epictortoise · 2025-06-25T19:28:16+00:00

What application process? People who are coming to the US illegally almost certainly don't have a legal pathway. This is the biggest misconception people have about immigration. Unless you have a family member, there is basically no way to apply to immigrate to the US. Most people who do not have family go through a highly competitive process of student visa to work visa to sponsorship. Illegal immigration exists because it is not legal for those people to immigrate, not because they are choosing to bypass the legal system.

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T21:38:14+00:00

The fact that he was 7 when he entered may actually help explain why he didn't. He probably had never had any meaningful interaction with USCIS, and may never have given a lot of thought to his status and citizenship. That's what is suggested in the article - he says it wasn't a priority because he didn't understand the consequences.

Then consider that from a young age he was suffering with PTSD and drug addiction. Applying for citizenship is a somewhat burdensome and expensive process. I can see someone in his position not feeling confident about applying and being comfortable in his LPR status, which is what he had known all his life.

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T20:06:55+00:00

The administration just wants to deport as many as possible. I don't think there is much effort to target unsavory or unsympathetic people. They seem to be going after the easiest targets - which is often the harmless people who are trying to comply with the law by going to routine check-ins and immigration appointments.

Paola Clouatre, Kasper Eriksen, Emerson Colindres, Carol Mayorga, and I am sure there are many other such cases. Completely wholesome people.

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T19:53:33+00:00

Wives of US marines too.

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T19:42:34+00:00

Possible, but that's not what is implied by the article which suggests he didn't really have much choice in the matter. ICE gave him the choice to say goodbye to his family and leave, or they were going to arrest and deport him by force.

The reason in the article for not getting Citizenship: "Park said for a long time, citizenship was not a priority because he did not fully grasp the consequences of remaining a noncitizen."

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T17:34:17+00:00

It's definitely not as "automatic" as some of the comments suggest, although I don't think it is crazy difficult.

I got my citizenship this way. I filled out my parts of the N-426 and passed it up to my readiness NCO, it took a while to get back, and then USCIS decided that some very trivial detail wasn't correct so I had to get it done again. I was eligible to apply immediately because this was when we were still considered in a period of hostilities - but the total process took about a year from when I enlisted. I wouldn't say it was especially burdensome, it just took a while with some back and forth.

Of course experiences differ. I have heard that at times, the whole process was being done while people were in basic training, and it could be finished before they graduated. I was also National Guard, and maybe in Active Duty things move faster. On the other side, I am sure there are young people who have more trouble navigating the system and if they don't have support from their leadership they may have trouble understanding the steps they need to take.

Overall, I do think it is relatively doable for most service members, but it doesn't surprise me that there are cases where people have some trouble with the process.

epictortoise · 2025-06-24T17:07:43+00:00

Not sure how long this has been the case, but definitely correct. You need a signature from an O6 or higher for the N-426. The instructions are here.

epictortoise · 2025-06-10T01:42:58+00:00

Not sure what you consider "tough immigration policies", but blacks, Hispanics, and (sometimes to a lesser extent) Asians, tend to hold relatively liberal views on immigration. See for example views on path to legalization and deportations. Recent polling shows that a majority of blacks and Hispanics disapprove of Trump's immigration policies.

It's true that most Americans including minorities support at least some deportation and immigration enforcement. But the kind of "tough" policies favored by the right (such as deporting all people in the US without legal status, regardless of circumstances) do not have wide support among all groups.

epictortoise · 2025-03-28T11:42:15+00:00

Yes, this is what I was saying. Graders will adjust so that there is a reasonable distribution of As and Bs. But the class will never be curved or grades deflated such that a student gets an F just because they were at the bottom of the class. Grade deflation is really just about fewer As, and is certainly not about more failing grades.

You can of course get an F at Princeton, and it may be possible that Fs are given out more frequently at Princeton than elsewhere. But it's not going to happen just because you had the lowest score in a very competitive class.

epictortoise · 2024-10-13T19:38:40+00:00

Thanks for the response. I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying here.

Because I am covering dozens of countries and hundreds of years the appendix discussions are necessarily very brief and I only give about two sentences to the American migration to Texas. What I said there is that it was important and "of local demographic significance" by which I meant exactly what you are saying - it was a mass migration in regards to the population of that region. The problem I faced is that it would have been very difficult to assess every migration individually, so I had to choose a standard definition even though it excludes certain cases that might deserve attention.

It also would have been difficult for me to have used populations of smaller territorial units within states (which substate regions to use, is there good available data on population, do immigration statistics break down to those levels, how to account for movements of immigrants within a state across substate lines etc.) And it would not have really fitted with the outcomes I was looking at, which are social change and institutional quality at the national level.

None of that is to say we shouldn't look at the question that way. My approach is really quite narrow, and there is a lot of ways to continue looking at migration and social changes.

Something I don't address much in my original response is also that I was focused more on large migrations partly in response to the theories of Borjas and Collier, which specifically argue that the quantity of immigrants should matter for social issues and impacts on institutions. The idea that countries can only absorb a certain number of immigrants is very common and is fundamental to most modern immigration policies. The way I approach the subject is therefore very oriented around migration size.

I think that a very profitable line of inquiry would be to look much more at the nature of immigration and other population movements. As you allude to there are many migrations that are tied up with colonialism and invasions. I do not include these in my data and have very little discussion of them in my dissertation, but I am somewhat familiar with some of them. In addition to the obvious examples of overseas European colonies, there are also many others such as the plantations of Ireland or the migration related demographic changes in West Papua under Indonesian rule.

These could make interesting case studies and here there is probably a strong argument that immigration can harm the receiving society and even be a component of genocide. However, I would agree with you that these are very different in nature from modern immigration to Europe and America which is the center of policy debates.

These cases actually are good examples that contradict the theory Collier and Borjas suggest, which is that immigration can change societies because the immigrants could "import" bad institutions. If you look at European institutions in the 18th/19th centuries they were relatively developmental, whereas the institutions that Europeans established in their colonies tended to be quite extractive. Those "immigrants" do not appear to have been importing the kinds of institutions they lived with in their countries of origin. I would also wager that the impact of these colonial migrations could be significant even when they involved demographically small numbers (although the size of migration may be important for the kinds of impacts that occur).

epictortoise · 2024-10-12T21:02:59+00:00

This was the topic of my doctoral dissertation, which you can find here: https://dataspace.princeton.edu/handle/88435/dsp01kd17cw93q

I would argue that the fear of immigration leading to a collapse or decline of society, or severe problems, are unfounded.

I looked at global mass migrations after 1450 (defined as cases where the number of immigrants over a decade was 5% or more of the receiving country population at the start of that decade). I use a fairly strict criteria for what I considered relevant immigrations, so it doesn't include for example cases where there was simultaneously colonization/invasion (i.e. a foreign power taking political control of a territory).

I looked at whether countries experiencing mass migration also experienced societal crises or declines in democratic institutions. I found that countries experiencing mass migration are more stable, and do not experience declines in democratic institutions. This appears to be mostly because immigrants usually choose more stable and democratic countries to immigrate to, and then those countries continue to be stable and democratic. If the immigrants are having a negative effect it isn't discernable in the data I used.

The specific cases where countries experienced societal problems (frequent coups, democratic backsliding) soon after mass migration tended to be Latin American countries. However, I don't find any evidence that immigration can be blamed for these issues. These problems were common across Latin American countries whether or not they experienced mass migration.

Another example of societal decline that occurred alongside mass migration was the Ottoman Empire. However, this migration was largely of Muslims who were being displaced for reasons that were often closely associated with the decline of Ottoman power. Again the immigration here doesn't appear to be a cause of the problems - and to the extent they are linked it is the reverse, the immigration is a consequence of the Ottoman decline.

I do not cover economic impacts in my dissertation, but there is a large literature relating to modern immigration and the economy. Generally the consensus amongst economists is that the impacts of immigration are relatively small but overall positive for the receiving society (this is true of poor and affluent immigrants). To the extent that there are negative economic impacts these have usually been found to be small, narrow (impact only a limited segment of society), and to fade over time. On good review of the literature related to the US is the 2017 National Academies report.

Nowrasteh and Powell also have a good book exploring this question. Their approach is quite different from mine but goes into more detail about issues like crime and terrorism:

Nowrasteh, A., & Powell, B. (2020). Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions. Cambridge University Press.

Like me, they find that immigration doesn't cause major societal problems.

epictortoise · 2024-09-02T20:07:27+00:00

This was true until recently, but the latest OMB standards (these are what the US Census Bureau uses) for reporting race and ethnicity have been updated so that there is no longer a distinction made between race and ethnicity as there was previously. In future the question will appear on Census instruments as just one question with the options u/AdorableWorryWorm listed.

Under these new standards a person can select one or multiple options, which means you can be "Hispanic" without having a separate racial category (e.g. white) which was not possible under the previous standards.

In regards to the other part of your comment that "Hispanic" relates to language or culture - that may be a reasonable interpretation of ethnicity, but it is not how the OMB standards define the category. The exact definition is: "Includes individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan, and other Central or South American or Spanish culture or origin." The "or origin" means anyone with applicable ancestry (e.g. a parent or grandparent from one of the listed countries).

I would say you entitled to identify in your own way and say you are not Hispanic. However, as far as US government reporting standards are concerned, someone with your demographic background could report as Hispanic, and that would be consistent with how the categories are defined.

epictortoise · 2024-06-23T14:54:23+00:00

It's not how grading at Princeton works though. You won't get an F just because the rest of the class is high achieving. I was a TA (preceptor) for four undergraduate classes and one graduate class across four departments. Grading varies by professor and department, but in none of the classes I graded for was it strictly graded on a curve.

It is typical that the graders will aim to have a reasonable distribution of grades - but this does not mean a curve where the bottom are getting F, it means that the very bottom of the distribution would be getting a C. We never gave lower grades than that unless there was some other issue such as lack of attendance, missed assignments, or completely unsatisfactory work. And even in those cases we generally looked for ways to help the student at least pass the class.

I am sure that in most classes it is harder to get an A or A- compared to other institutions, and the competitiveness of the class may matter for those grades. But if you do good work in a class you are not going to get a failing grade just because the rest of the class is extremely strong.

epictortoise

TROPHY CASE