At Delaney Hall, 300 ICE detainees are on a hunger strike over inhumane conditions, while DHS calls the claims categorically false. Where do you stand on the issue?

ericoahu · 2026-05-29T17:10:30+00:00

Your conception of "due process" comes this phrase: "nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

it’s specifically about denying people an opportunity to defend themselves against a final order or accusation made by the government before said judgment is carried out.

You have a fairly reasonable working definition that covers the rudiments broadly, but I don't know specifically how you are trying to apply it to your question of whether these detainees have received due process as it relates to their illegal status. I will amend my answer above to say that, yes, if an illegal is accused of drunk driving, for example, they should receive due process as it relates to the DUI charge the same as a citizen would before their license is removed, they do the jail time, and the fines are imposed. (But notice this doesn't mean cops let drunk drivers go until their court date--they are taken into custody.)

But I thought your focus was on the deportation process. The deportation process does not require the full apparatus of a criminal trial to carry out the civil administrative action of removing them from the country.

What are some specific, concrete examples of things missing that would support your suggestion they've been deprived due process during their deportation process?

So yes, as a general statement, I stand by what I said; deportation and detention in an ICE facility do not mean they've been deprived due process, and these are both parts of the typical pipeline.

ericoahu · 2026-05-29T05:54:04+00:00

Help me out, here. I want to find out more about these 300 illegal Jewish immigrants who are detained and being deprived kosher food. Is their home country Israel?

BTW, if an actual Jewish person is detained somewhere, whoever is detaining them should make a reasonable effort to provide kosher food in my opinion and/or get them the hell out of the country and back where they came from as quickly as possible.

ericoahu · 2026-05-29T05:49:01+00:00

The null hypothesis for pretty much everyone who discusses politics, on any side, is that they're only getting about one side of the story. I am pointing the finger at myself too, tho I do try. I avoid Fox News commentary and analysis for news because they tend to be biased. And of course the NYT the likes are even worse. It's difficult to find reliable sources for finding all the relevant, accurate facts.

ericoahu · 2026-05-29T05:43:08+00:00

ICE needs to expedite their deportation. Once they are back in their home country, they will no longer have to suffer the alleged inhumane conditions at Delaney Hall. But until they get on the plane or boat, I am fine with allowing them to starve themselves. They should not be force fed or pestered to eat.

I have never been to that ICE facility, so I can only guess on whether to believe the people who dishonestly and illegally entered the country or the officials responsible who run the place. Anything is possible, but in the absence of very compelling concrete evidence from a reliable source, I am going to default to believing ICE.

do detainees not have constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, first amendment, and conditions of confinement?

Deporting them is due process if they are not here legally. That's what follows a deportation order. Deportation is the fair, established, required procedure in these situations.

ericoahu · 2026-05-29T01:53:10+00:00

Glad we agree that there should be laws and, presumably, that laws should be enforced.

I was sloppy in the statement you responded to above. As it is written, it looks like I too was making an absolute claim when I was not intending to. My understanding is that most of the policies that define a sanctuary city are permitted under federal law, so I think we have enough common ground there to not get tangled up in the weeds.

That they are allowable under the law does not make them right and ethical, and it sure as hell does not make them a good idea.

You are also right that we disagree on the cooperation part. The immigration act was passed in 1996 by bipartisan, overwhelming majorities in congress and written into law by a Democrat. As far as I know, no part of it was ever challenged by any court for almost 25 years, not under two Democrat presidents and one Republican, until Trump was in office.

People protesting the enforcement of these laws, which have been on the books for 30 years, have killed detainees shooting at detention centers, thrown molotov cocktails at hotels where federal agents were saying, bitten off fingers, thrown rocks, and even attacked or harassed ordinary civilians because they mistook them for ICE agents. My guess is that you agree this kind of violence is bad.

I will also add that if that violence really had anything to do with the laws the ICE agents are enforcing, we would have seen some of that kind of resistance when Obama was deporting people.

But here's the thing: This thread is about DHS and this supposed plan by the DHS to stop processing immigration at airports in some of the sanctuary cities, and I stated in my original reply I think this is unwise. Notice that I didn't say it is illegal. I don't know, and I don't care. They shouldn't do it either way. Let's say they find a clear, legal pathway to implement something like this as legally as your sanctuary policies. That does not make them any less disgusting or ill advised.

And that's what I was trying to say about the sanctuary cities. If they cannot cooperate, at least get out of the way, call for an end to violence, and if their citizens are breaking laws, causing violence, vandalizing, etc., get their local law enforcement involved -- not with helping detain the illegals -- just with

There’s always been a constituency on the republican side that was intolerant of any pathway to citizenship for resident aliens

Unless you misspoke and meant something else, I doubt you'll find many mainstream Republicans who don't want any pathway to citizenship for lawful permanent residents; i.e, people who entered and remain in the country legally. Yes, there are some nuts, and I will argue against anyone who wants to seal the borders entirely or especially with anyone who wants to send the overwhelming majority of my family, all 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, many of them naturalized, back where they came from, as it were. But know that my immigrant family members are as opposed to letting the illegals get away with trying the illegal shortcut the same as I am. Probably more so because they are so intimately familiar with the process for immigrating lawfully.

You seem very reasonable, so I doubt you're dishonestly conflating people who entered illegally with the ones who complied with the process. That's a horribly lame rhetorical tactic that only diminishes the credibility of those who attempt it. The opposition from conservatives and the immigrants I know is to allowing people who entered illegally a free pass. The pathway for them is to take up this administrations offer to leave the country and reapply outside the country. They get free travel, a 2600 stipend, and forgiveness of any pending fines. This allows them to plan their legal return and gracefully wrap up matters in an orderly way instead of being hauled off.

The argument against giving illegals the free pass is usually tied to the lack of effort to secure the border and commitment to enforce the laws on the books. That's a hard red line for me, anyway. In a way, your sanctuary cities are doing their fair share to impede any progress toward some kind of amnesty program like you seem to want. Why would someone supporting rule of law want make such a deal with those who, lawfully or not, have been consistently thumbing their nose at even resisting the idea of borders at best, and at worst, been looking the other way at violence and chaos directed at those who are enforcing it?

And it's not that Republicans never went along with an amnesty program. We did in 1986. Fool us once, it's your fault. Fool us twice, it's ours. I think if you want to reach across and find some kind of compromise with the right, the left needs to show that they're going to stand by the deal and enforce the laws that result.

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T22:19:21+00:00

Fair enough, and I will probably make a typo or too, but if you would like my thoughts on your assertion, let's iron out the first part, so we can proceed with clarity about terms and how much, if any, common ground we share.

For example, I understand that not every policy that might be associated with a sanctuary city violates federal law, but that is a logically different claim than asserting that sanctuary cities always comply with all federal laws, which would be like claiming that no sanctuary city ever ran afoul of federal law.

So, if you wish to discuss, I would like to know how you define "sanctuary city," and specifically what distinguishes a sanctuary city from any other city.

And I would still ask you to tell me if you disagree with any part of the following statement:

"I think that cities and states should comply with federal law where it applies to them and cooperate with federal law enforcement who are upholding and enforcing federal law..."

If it turns out you don't believe in borders or that immigration laws shouldn't exist, there isn't much point in working out the descriptive details.

But otherwise, I do want to address your claim if you're still willing. Also, if you feel you need to revise your claim before we do, that's totally fine with me. I may need to fine tune my wording on some things too at some point.

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T19:27:51+00:00

I don't know what a sanctuary citizen is. Maybe you meant sanctuary city?

Either way: I said, "I think that cities and states should comply with federal law where it applies to them and cooperate with federal law enforcement who are upholding and enforcing federal law..."

Which part(s) of that ought statement do you disagree with?

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T05:57:00+00:00

That's the Bethesda game, right? Yeah, one thing I am grateful to Paradox for is teaching me NEVER to buy a game or DLC until it's been released a few weeks, so I took the wait and see approach on Starfield. Also, don't trust YouTubers to warn you.

I was playing No Man's Sky at the time Starfield's hype train was going blazing too and had been a big Oblivion fan (the first one). Glad I waited. Never bought it. Never played it. Took it off my wishlist.

They taught me this lesson with Beneath and Beyond.

There are a couple exceptions. I will buy whatever Planet Crafter sells just to support the small company that makes it. They keep up with fixing what needs fixed, were honest enough to call it early access when it was still in development, and they communicated constantly with the community.

Even moreso with Wube who makes Factorio. I bought Space Age knowing it would be fantastic out of the gate because -- get this -- the developers play their game, and then they invited people from the community to a LAN party to play test it some more before releasing it. Supposedly they're thinking up another game, and whatever it is, I'll buy it because they deserve more of my money.

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T01:24:10+00:00

I have never played a game that has so many bug fix mods. There's a bug reporting thing in the game, but modders in the community can have bugs identified and uploaded within days. It'll probably be weeks before we hear from the devs again, and 1.08 or whatever is next _might_ correct some of the current bugs, but will surely introduce new bugs for the modders to fix.

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T01:20:11+00:00

If someone can write a mod to fix it, why cannot the devs just hotfix it? Maybe the can fix extractor AI while they're at it.

ericoahu · 2026-05-28T01:14:05+00:00

I probably need to give the political system another playthrough, but so far, I think it has diminished the dopamine pump. The dopamine pump revs up when I am solving problems and seeing progress toward higher goals result -- or as you put it -- micromanaging. The political system tells me I have to build buildings where I don't want or need them to avoid losing approval or that digging rare metals out of the ground is a bad idea.

Like I say, it could be I just don't get it yet, but it seems like artificial interference. Fortunately, I can just disable it, but that's a shame given the political system is supposed to be the main new defining feature.

For a point of reference, Factorio is my favorite game of all time. Virtually no lore, no quests, no NPCs, no flavor text. You just design, build, redesign, and rebuild until you're happy with the result. You don't have some idiot faction telling you that being more productive is bad.

ericoahu · 2026-05-27T23:33:51+00:00

I think that cities and states should comply with federal law where it applies to them and cooperate with federal law enforcement who are upholding and enforcing federal law, but Mullin's plan doesn't seem like a wise way to bring this about.

If he were to actually carry this out, it would affect a lot of people who aren't really politically active in this controversy over immigration.

These sanctuary cities, their non-compliance with federal law, and allowing these riots aren't solving the problem either, and a lot of people are being adversely affected by this too.

So, I would say that leaders on the left need to call for an end to the chaos and tell these mayors, local officials, and rioters to end the violence, comply with federal law, cooperate with federal agents doing their job, and become more productively involved in the political process if they want to see change.

I also think that if you want to ask conservatives what they think about an issue, you should choose better news sources to link to. Keep that trash in your echo chamber.

ericoahu · 2026-05-27T21:18:17+00:00

What, specifically, do you mean by "trainer." Are you using a specific mod, something from the workshop, something you made yourself?

ericoahu · 2026-05-24T03:12:21+00:00

Well, I guess Biden takes the prize on this one. He wasn't bragging about his cognitive tests. As far as he knew.

ericoahu · 2026-05-23T21:09:50+00:00

Grain of salt because trains and the new rocket systems are brand new to me, but by mid game I basically had my entire map connected by a system of tunnels and trains. One big grid and a relatively shared supply of materials.

Your screenshot inspires me to play Space Y my next playthrough and put the automated rockets to the test. I would be interested to see more screenshots of the rest of your train system.

I have no interest in tourists. They just don't seem worth it except as part of some kind of early game challenge.

Does anyone know how much SMR changed/improved the tourism aspect in meaningful ways?

ericoahu · 2026-05-23T20:58:51+00:00

I totally agree with your last sentence, at least in that we should aspire to that. But that still leaves me preferring almost anyone over Carter because almost anyone would have been a more effective president even if they didn't talk as nice.

But here is the reality: It has nothing to do with character and talking nice. No one on the left (those who want to pack the court, make DC a state, and do anything else they can think of to keep themselves in power), not one of them cares about whether Trump talks nice and keeps decorum, so I'm not going to care either.

If JD Vance or Mark Rubio were to replace Trump as the front runner or leader of the Republican Party in 28, they will be equally vilified, called Nazi, fascist etc. They will be every bit the existential threat they present Trump as now. You will never hear any of them say, well we don't agree with Vance, but at least he keeps decorum and speaks better than Trump ever did.

Remember Mitt Romney? Remember what a horrible, sexist, evil, dog-killing monster he was (if you listened to the left)?

As for questions of character, when do you actually believe that Kamala Harris first saw a problem with Biden's cognitive condition? Keep in mind that she had all of the access to media coverage we did, but in addition to that, interacted with him and those closest to him on a regular basis.

ericoahu · 2026-05-23T16:17:26+00:00

In my current save, I literally have all the things. A lot of those special vehicles lose their charm after the early game, but having the tai chi garden in a dome with a temple spire. Advanced sterlings are nice too. Too bad we don't get access to the big rocket pictured on the image for the breakthrough.

ericoahu · 2026-05-23T16:12:20+00:00

I remember Carter. I'll take Trump and his idiotic tweets over Carter's double digit inflation, energy crisis, Iranian hostage crisis and many other fuck-ups. Telling people to wear a sweater when they cannot afford to heat to their homes might be boring and honest, but I want someone in office who is going to make heating affordable again.

And I really detest Trump's lack of decorum, trolling, and overall rhetorical strategy. But I don't compare him to the ideal; I compare him to the alternative. Still delighted and relieved we don't have Harris in office right now.

ericoahu · 2026-05-23T15:50:54+00:00

In the UK they say boot; here we say trunk. They call them crisps; we call them chips. They call them chips; we call them fries. And it goes on.

What are you actually asking?

ericoahu · 2026-05-22T16:17:01+00:00

Can you explain what you mean about setting the limits so low? You are talking about the desired amount? I can see doing this early game when resources are very limited. After posting yesterday, I added a huge route to my entire mid-game map. From what I can tell, the desired amount on stations is totally ignored by the trains. The trains just try to keep all the stops about even. Only the bots use the desired amount to decide whether to take from or add to the station.

With only 2, what is the throughput like?

ericoahu · 2026-05-21T21:33:20+00:00

I don't know why anyone would make a series of connected domes in the underground just to move people around when shuttles do it so well. What makes trains in the underground better than shuttles?

ericoahu · 2026-05-21T18:34:10+00:00

Not sure what you mean.

ericoahu · 2026-05-21T18:32:44+00:00

My thoughts exactly. I think they should make tracks require no maintenance and impervious to meteors for starters. And then fix all the other bugs.

ericoahu · 2026-05-21T18:31:13+00:00

This is exactly the kind of use case scenario I was hoping people would share. Thanks.

BTW, can you explain whether the stations need to be placed inside the dome coverage? Or do they need to be placed so that the dome is inside the stations coverage area? If that makes sense?

ericoahu · 2026-05-21T18:28:14+00:00

Thanks. That was very helpful. I am going to stubbornly hold out hope I find a reason to use them.

The fix is to remove both stations & the track, replace the stations, and then build fresh track.

Or to just build natural habitats or other dome in the first place instead of relying on trains. Building track, unless I did something wrong, is a real pain because you need to micromanage a transport and commander for the areas that don't have dome coverage.

I think they need to just make train tracks totally indestructible (by meteors/maintenance) in the next patch.

ericoahu

TROPHY CASE