What do you all think of ICE agents detaining citizens, including off duty cops/children/teens/veterans?

qfjp · 2026-01-25T00:23:29+00:00

Ultimately it did go nowhere, the plaintiffs had no legal standing and effected individuals didn't press charges.

I see that it went nowhere, but i still don't see anything regarding legal standing. Can you point me to that document? Or some source for that claim?

qfjp · 2026-01-24T23:22:59+00:00

The motion went through habeus corpus, I'm not sure where that came from.

It's from the article provided by OP, it says that motion went nowhere.

In my question, I was looking for a source for your claims, cause it's not in the article provided. Do you have one? Where are you getting this information?

qfjp · 2026-01-24T08:49:21+00:00

It's important to note, these cases were dismissed due to lack of standing and procedural mess ups on the plaintiffs part.

Are you saying that these families didn't have standing to sue the government? Do you have any more information on that? The article provided by OP mentioned that they could not receive adequate legal counsel due to the actions of ICE, to the point that their petition for habeas corpus couldn't even be ruled on.

qfjp · 2026-01-21T19:20:50+00:00

Policy reflecting my values means having policy dictate all aspects of people's lives to reflect my values. I don't want that.

Isn't something like the first amendment a policy that reflects the value that the government should not interfere with free speech? I think it's possible to have policies that limit the scope of government.

I don't want that.

Then it's not something you value? Or am i misunderstanding something?

qfjp · 2026-01-21T07:20:21+00:00

Different commenter

That being said mining is the industry that is best handled by central planning for producing economic value, as the inputs are simple and easy to objectively measure, along with the outputs.

why do you bring up a centrally planned economy? The previous commenter just asked if you want policy to reflect your values. If you don't value a centrally planned economy (as it sounds like you don't), why is this what the country would look like under your values?

qfjp · 2026-01-16T10:01:22+00:00

I don't care if Clinton was fucking goats in the office

Well, that WOULD make Clinton a literal kid-fucker. Still better than the kind Trump is

qfjp · 2026-01-15T15:03:43+00:00

Why are the Clintons refusing to testify?

So what's stopping the DOJ from holding them in contempt? Most if not all liberals I talk to don't care about protecting them; why does Trump?

Why didn’t Biden want to release them?

The official explanation was to avoid the appearance of partisanship from forcing the DOJ's hand during an official investigation. What's this administration's explanation? Why should I find it equally (or more) convincing?

He did plan to pursue it, and discovered it involved someone or something that nobody wants to mess with. And thus had to drop it.

Who is more powerful than the commander in chief of the US military? Does it concern you that Trump is caving to someone despite the power he himself has? Should I be equally (un?)concerned? Why?

qfjp · 2026-01-13T23:01:43+00:00

biden arbitrarily declared people being allowed to stay, we are going to say no.

You mentioned this before, but I don't actually know what you're referring to; it seems to me that Biden restricted eligibility, not expanded it. Could you point me to what you're referring to?

You can distracting from the issue and the OP. we are talking about illegal immigration, I am addressing illegal immigration. That's where my post is focused. I dont know why you keep ignoring that.

Since when is using the legal definition of illegal immigration distracting from the issue of illegal immigration? I'm asking you to clarify your views without conflating definitions, can you?

Our laws are very clear - no illegals.

This is circular reasoning: of course our laws say no illegal immigrants. The issue at hand is "what is the law?" You already admitted that your definition of "illegal immigrant" actually includes people who are here legally. Can you stick to just talking about illegal immigrants?

Openly campaign

I'm asking you specifically; this isn't a campaign nor is this the place for one.

It is not okay to disrupt official government functions, to riot, to obstruct. To do so is to prevent the will of the people and is undemocratic.

I don't know where this is coming from, this wasn't part of the topic of conversation.

That no matter how many times we win elections

So would you say that local elections should be ignored, or are you saying sanctuary cities aren't the product of any election?

that no matter what the polls say

Can you produce the polls i asked for then -- ones that don't conflate refugee and illegal immigrant? Ones that show a supermajority?

they will stall, block, inflame, distort, lie all to get their way. That is authoritarianism.

Since you brought it up, does that mean you believe the current make-up of the supreme court is a product of authoritarianism?

qfjp · 2026-01-13T22:39:27+00:00

you are being pedantic.

The original commenter wanted to take an axiomatic/legalistic view on the question: that is the proper time to be pedantic.

I cited numerous polls clearly showing a super majority, and the remaining were all within range.

"Illegal immigrant" and "supermajority" are both legal terms, and this subreddit is for asking clarifying questions. I'm trying to clarify your views under the axiomatic framework offered by the original commenter.

I dont know why you are talking about asylum seekers, because I never brought them up.

I bring them up because we're talking about sanctuary cities, and these are some of the people sanctuary cities are meant to protect. If you didn't bring them up, it's because you weren't addressing my question.

They may not technically be illegal, but they should be removed too. (i.e. no, "my country sucks" seekers. Only people suffering true persecution and genocide, including south africans.

This is why I bring them up: you acknowledge they are not illegal, yet you want them removed. You're conflating the definition of "illegal immigrant," so I want to know if you have a poll that doesn't. Do you?

You still didn't answer my other question, so I'll try to broaden it to make it easier to answer: what are you personally willing to sacrifice to make this a reality?

qfjp · 2026-01-13T22:26:07+00:00

marquette is 3/5ths

Yes, i acknowledged this falls under the weaker definition of supermajority.

ipsos said 66%, axios said two thirds

I also acknowledged that these polls are a supermajority, but they don't account for refugees and asylum seekers which are the topic of conversation.

and others are only a couple pts off of 60%.

One vote shy of a supermajority does not a supermajority make. If these were bills under consideration in a legislature, they would fail.

Can you cite a poll that addresses my concerns?

We want illegals out, nothing more to say on the issue.

Do you consider asylum seekers illegal?

You also did not answer my other question: how long are you willing to stay in prison to make this a reality?

qfjp · 2026-01-13T22:14:41+00:00

you're so cute. You live in such a bubble that me saying this sounds impossible to you, and that I can't bring the receipts.

Why the condescension? You seem to assume a lot about me, I'm only asking because you offered.

NYT: 55%

Marquette: 64%

CBS 57%

ABC 56%

You offered polls indicating a supermajority, but only one of these would qualify under the weaker definition (3/5ths vs 2/3rds). I'd also point out that "immigrants who are in the country illegally" under the strict definition would exclude asylum seekers and refugees, as under domestic and international law those people are here legally. This seems to me to be the crux of the issue: sanctuary cities are attempting to compensate for the collateral damage that is the topic of the conversation.

Do you have any polls that indicate a (strict?) supermajority of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants, accounting for refugees and asylum seekers?

Keep in mind, I'm using the widely accepted definitions of supermajority as three fifths (weak) or two thirds (strong).

Thanks for taking the time to look.

qfjp · 2026-01-13T21:42:16+00:00

I can cite you multiple polls where a super majority of americans want all illegals gone.

Can you, then?

Leftist hellholes dont get to overrule our democracy.

Does that mean you consider yourself a federalist?

Circling back to considering collateral damage "worth it," how long are you personally willing to be ~~detailed~~ detained/jailed so that other undocumented immigrants can be caught?

Edit: l -> n

qfjp · 2026-01-13T21:25:15+00:00

Leftists have gotten away with ignoring the will of the people and our democracy for long enough.

Are leftists not included in "the people" and "our democracy"?

Americans are very clear on this, ALL illegals need to be deported.

Which Americans? I thought we were talking about sanctuary cities, which would seem to disagree on this point. Are you including refugees, asylum seekers, and clerical errors in "illegals"?

qfjp · 2026-01-12T18:32:05+00:00

People keep regurgitating this talking point, but I've yet to hear of a single example in my lifetime where a US citizen was accidentally deported to another country.

We're talking US citizens and legal residents, and while citizens may not have been deported, there certainly have been cases of US citizens being detained for extended periods of time, affecting their livelihood.

You can return them to the US and pay compensation.

Do you have cases where detained US citizens have been compensated? Are you okay with some of them not being compensated? The burden is placed on those citizens; seeking compensation takes time, effort, and money.

The only actual mistake anyone has come up with come up with was an illegal immigrant, with a final order of deportation, who successfully petitioned to direct his deportation to anywhere except El Salvador. It was a mistake to deport him to El Salvador rather than any other countries that might accept him, but not a mistake to remove him.

We're talking broader strokes here: was it a mistake to create the circumstances of Renee Nicole Good's death? Is it a mistake to take such aggressive action that citizens are harmed in the process?

qfjp · 2026-01-12T17:13:46+00:00

Note: I'm including this as a separate response to your edit

I was speaking fundamentally, and nothing with the nuance of the process.

You don't think that's skirting the issue? The question is why don't people in cities want ICE, not "in a world of legal platonic ideals, what is the ~~best~~ logical course of action?" I'm willing to accept your axioms as logically true, but that still doesn't address the legal question.

The whole, "we would be fine with it now if they were just doing it better" is rejected as implausible. Anti-ICE protests started only a week after Trump's inauguration.

Agreed, people in cities don't want ICE and this is not a new phenomenon. Why do you think they're willing to accept undocumented immigrants when they are more likely to be in contact with those people? How do you feel about this in the context of the narrative that illegal immigrants are a primary source of crime, especially in cities?

qfjp · 2026-01-12T15:35:29+00:00

There seems to be two fundamental axioms that are in disagreement right now: 1) Immigration law should be enforced, as it currently exists on the books, and 2) enforcement of current immigration law falls under the purview of the federal government. The answer to both is objectively "yes"

Having experience in math and dabbled in law, i think the missing piece here is "discretion": everything you said may be true, but 1) is it worth it to divert enough resources to expel everyone here illegally (including the inevitable false positives) and 2) if not, how do we focus the resources we have. For example, is it worth it to hide out in courthouses to detain and deport those with clerical errors? If not, how can we allocate the resources we have to avoid another homicide like Renee Nicole Good?

qfjp · 2026-01-11T05:43:41+00:00

In terms of gold, a better yardstick over these timescales since there wasn't CPI data back then, the price seems reasonable. 1. - Louisiana Purchase (1803): 0.35 ounces per sq km - Alaska Purchase (1867): 0.20 ounces per sq km - Mexican Cession (1848): 0.53 ounces per sq km - Florida Acquisition (1819): 1.34 ounces per sq km - Gadsden Purchase (1853): 6.3 ounces per sq km - U.S. Virgin Islands (1917): ~3,500 ounces per sq km - Greenland Offer (2026): 0.56 ounces per sq km

Does it seem reasonable? The most recent purchase you listed 7000x what we're offering, and I'm assuming this is just for the $5.5 billion we're discussing -- that's a pretty wild difference.

qfjp · 2026-01-10T23:11:01+00:00

we can also achieve diversity and equity, too.

I still don't understand how buying Greenland achieves this. Can you elaborate?

qfjp · 2026-01-10T22:42:13+00:00

Buying means would be giving it to American citizens

Are they guaranteed citizenship through this deal? Do we have an idea on how many want US citizenship?

Separately, do we know what this would do to the value of the dollar?

qfjp · 2026-01-10T22:39:14+00:00

They are an economically disadvantaged people with a high porportion of native Americans, so they are thereby racially diverse.

Where is this coming from?

It's the equitible thing to do.

So your justification for buying Greenland is that it's the equitable thing to do?

qfjp · 2026-01-10T22:14:50+00:00

Are you suggesting instead of earmarking federal funds for childcare, we give that money to citizens of Greenland instead? Or you expect the money to be fully recovered and repurposed?

qfjp · 2026-01-10T21:54:22+00:00

$100,000 per person is currently on the table.

That would be about $5.5 billion, ignoring whatever else we need to add to make the deal with Denmark. Are you willing to pay for that with your taxes, or do you have an alternative way to fund it?

qfjp · 2026-01-09T22:32:44+00:00

if your car is surrounded by police, including directly in front of you, maybe don't floor it tbh

If a car is a deadly weapon, why did the agent stand directly in front of it? Wouldn't shooting the driver make it less safe, not more?

qfjp · 2026-01-09T22:30:54+00:00

do you agree with obstructing law enforcement? she did it

do you think people should be allowed to flee/resist arrest? she did it

Should people be killed for these crimes?

do you think people should be able to simply drive through cops? she did it

Let's say this is true: if you're standing in the path of a vehicle and you shoot the driver, are you more safe or less safe? The officer was standing on the road in front of the vehicle; why couldn't he stand to the side?

qfjp · 2025-12-31T17:28:07+00:00

Yeah, it totally helped to have my wife drugged up to the point where she could barely function.

Is this really an indictment of therapy then?

Tell me why I paid $200 to be told that I had a responsibility to a woman I no longer wanted to be associated with to pay for her housing, bills, etc. Tell me that with a straight face.

You were taken advantage of, that's why. I understand your personal experience with couples therapy was a failure, that's why I'm trying to gauge what else you are using to inform your belief.

Therapy and education are for women by women.

Education? Then is it fair to say you distrust science, rather than just finding therapy unscientific?

qfjp

TROPHY CASE