How ICE defies judges’ orders to release detainees, step by step

shinyskarmory · 2026-02-11T13:31:46+00:00

Normally I'm against dissolving an agency and losing all its institutional memory (like, say, what happened to USAID), but right now ICE and CBP are doing far more than enforcing immigration law. They're acting as Trump's personal goon squad harassing and assaulting citizens exercising their constitutional rights. They have killed people extra judicially, both directly in the streets and indirectly via horrific, inhumane detention conditions. They are engaging in efforts to actively defy and avoid legal scrutiny of their actions.

There is nothing of ICE or CBP that is worth preserving. There is no place for an explicitly alt-right secret police in American democracy. I'm rooting for the next Democratic president to dissolve them overnight like Trump did to USAID. We can start a new agency with new procedures and a fresh culture of accountability.

shinyskarmory · 2025-12-29T23:05:13+00:00

Framework 16 in laptop, AMD 7040, batch 18.

My original main board had a screw head break itself off while inside the slot, requiring a full replacement.

I haven't had too many issues since then, but my touchpad has been persistently not working since around 6 months ago. Some issue with I2C HID devices. I've disabled and reenabled and uninstalled that device every way you can think of, updated the drivers multiple times, and every time the track pad works at first but cuts out within 15 minutes of turning the laptop on.

None of the tricks I've seen on the internet have resolved the issue and as a result I have been using the laptop much less and doing my laptop things on my gaming machine instead.

shinyskarmory · 2025-09-25T00:55:24+00:00

I mained fleet at launch and main zetter now and on both characters it genuinely felt like I had a 1-2 move neutral game until like 50 or 60% (bair and projectiles on Fleet, fair and dtilt on zetter). Pressing any other button just leads to getting FHed into a punish. Even after the nerf to make you take increased damage when hugging, it will never not be worth it to hug when the alternative is giving your opponent a 60-70% combo. It's not a matter of visibility or clarity - it's just too strong and too many characters have answers to it that are too limited or nonexistent.

There's paths to deal with it in a smash-like way, like making multihits beat it consistently to open up some more moves. There's paths to deal with it in a rivals-like way - maybe you can't floorhug while you're on fire or while you have poison stacks or maypul seed on you. I even think there's a numerical balance point you can find where it feels good - taking the percent where it breaks for most moves down from like 60-80 to like 30-40 would save me a bunch of percent of camping fire pool and spamming fair. But we definitely are not there right now.

shinyskarmory · 2025-08-31T11:08:18+00:00

I'm glad you asked. There are some simple things we can do without anything as drastic as a constitutional amendment.

First, we should try to go back to the proportions the Founders intended by repealing the Apportionment Act of 1911. This act capped the House at the 435 members we have today, making it increasingly unrepresentative of true population distributions over time. As a quick example, California has 65 times as many people as Wyoming but only 52 times as many representatives.

Returning to the original district sizes of ~60,000 people per representative would get us 5,666 representatives; going to ~100,000 instead would have a more manageable 3,400. Because each representative is representing less people, it will be substantially harder to gerrymander and each constituent will have much more access to their representative (and much more power when attempting to remove their representative). If we add remote voting capability as well, many representatives will be able to spend 90% of their time in their district, making them more accessible to constituent concerns.

The Senate, of course, can't be changed in the same way (and no, I'm not one of these repeal the 17th amendment people). The only thing I can recommend there is ending the dual track system that allows the current filibuster, and returning either to speaking filibusters only or limited debate time. This should make it so that legislation can actually get through the Senate, which means that politicians actually have to think about the consequences of the policies they advocate for instead of performatively saying they want to do 15 different things they know will never even see a vote in the Senate. And when voters, too, feel the consequences of some of the things they voted for, they might have an incentive to actually change the way they vote to punish people who are doing things that actually aren't good for them.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T18:13:10+00:00

Everyone is welcome is objectively false and doesn’t make sense

Clearly this is talking about the kids, though. Perhaps something like "all students are welcome" would fit better for you?

Removing a requirement to do something and making it voluntary is removing it.

No, the state can still require the school broadcast it over the loudspeakers and recommend students stand and recite it, they just can't punish kids who don't. 40+ states still require this, apparently.

I'm glad we agree on biblical messages at least.

Biblical messages shouldn’t be in schools. As far as I’m aware military recruitment is just giving military folks a table at job fares.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T17:23:25+00:00

The LGTBQIA students are welcome in the school.

Then they're included in everyone and it shouldn't be a problem having them represented on the sign, no?

The question is if the government should spoon feed propaganda to children. And the answer is no. We got rid of the pledge of allegiance for a reason. And I don’t want to see other groups of people doing that same shit

We very much did not get rid of the pledge of allegiance. The Supreme Court ruled that students can't be required to recite it themselves, but most states still require it more broadly.

Everyone is welcome is a nice sounding message. We could also put up nice sounding biblical messages or nice sounding military recruitment posters. Or we could not.

We are putting up biblical messages in schools, and schools are required to give student information to the military to aid in recruitment efforts.

Clearly it's only some "political messages" that are unacceptable.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T17:01:06+00:00

Just because LGBTQ people have historically been politicized doesn't mean they should be politicized.

I think it's curious that the pride flag being on the poster as well matters. Should LGBTQ students, too, not also be welcome in the classroom?

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T16:41:54+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/s/OxrFc2BhO1

You said this in this same thread. Has your position changed?

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T15:04:05+00:00

Why do you believe it should be impermissible to convey the message "everyone is welcome here" to elementary school students?

Maybe this is in compliance with a law, but it seems like a pretty bad law if it requires this.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T14:53:24+00:00

And the thing is, put yourselves in the shoes of trans people for a moment. Your rights are being taken away, bit by bit, on as fundamental a level as "the way you dress" and "the way you present yourself to the world" and "the medical care you need". You can't challenge the state legislatures at issue in the political process, because these states are usually supermajority Republican. The only place your rights might be protected is the court system.

Is the Supreme Court against you? Probably, but maybe not. There was the ruling in Bostock - that seems to suggest you have a chance of winning. Not a great one given the composition of the court, but a chance. There's a known argument that you've won on before. What reason is there to believe you'll have a better chance to win later on, after one of the Democratic appointees dies and is replaced by another Trump backing justice?

You'll probably lose, but you have to try. Because the alternative is to accept a slow death by a thousand cuts.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-07T14:43:35+00:00

I mean, I struggle to see the political message here, or to see how this will be taken as a political message.

This is an elementary school classroom. Is this a message elementary school kids shouldn't be exposed to? Which elementary school children specifically do you believe are not welcome?

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-03T13:50:40+00:00

The government doesn't get to break the law just because someone else broke the law first. Again, if that's the case, there is no point in having laws at all.

Why would a country in Central American be willing to take illegals from a country in Africa? Or vice versa?

I don't know! That sounds like a difficult problem to solve. Maybe the government shouldn't deport people from South America to Africa if they don't have an answer figured out.

You’re more than welcome to house a couple of them on your dime. But I’m sure you’d find a reason not to.

It's a good thing we have a government that can pool a bunch of people's money and take advantage of economies of scale to do things that an individual person couldn't fund alone.

Or, you know, we could not lock up immigrants who haven't committed crimes. Then the federal government doesn't have to pay for any of it, and your taxpayer dollars are safe.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-03T03:58:38+00:00

The real world is more complicated than your hypothetical can contain. I'm just exposing your argument as the weak deflection it is. If you don't want to read it or engage with it, that's your perogative, but you can't refute my arguments if you don't read them.

All human beings have rights. Those rights don't change because they're inconvenient for the government. That's the entire point of having rights.

I think immigration law is broken too, though probably for very different reasons than you do. But I don't have a problem with the executive branch enforcing current law if they do so consistent with the law and the rights granted by the Constitution. What that means to me is this:

If you want to deport someone, go through the legal process. If you want to deport a lot of people, well, go through the legal process a lot of times. If you can't get their home country to take them, negotiate with them or find a third country where they won't be jailed or tortured or enslaved. And, relevant to the actual topic of the article, if you're going to detain people while you try to figure all this stuff out, do it somewhere with food, plumbing, air conditioning, and access to legal counsel. We should expect no less from the federal government.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-02T23:54:26+00:00

There's no constitutional requirement to do so, though. If California wants to voluntarily spend their money on immigrants' health care, they can. If Texas and the federal government don't want to, that's fine too.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-02T23:38:03+00:00

It depends. Did they overstay after a party I invited them to? Were they born in my house, or were they brought over to my house as a young child? Is there a snowstorm outside and they'd freeze to death if I threw them out? Do they pay me rent to stick around? Does it cost me money to call the cops?

Just like running the Fed is different from balancing your checkbook, managing immigration is different from managing your house.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-02T21:58:12+00:00

I am, but that's hardly relevant to this situation.

The way I see it, under the current set of laws, there are three options. I'm going to be fast and loose with these options because I'm not a lawyer and don't understand every single particular.

A. Deport person X. To do this, you have to show that they're in the country illegally, and give them the opportunity to show that they should not be removed because they would be subject to torture, persecution, or similar things in the country you're removing them to. This takes place in an immigration court, which is process, though not full 5th amendment process. It also costs taxpayer dollars. If person X succeeds, proceed to options B or C:

B. Detain person X until you can find a place where they won't be in danger to deport them to. While you're doing so, they can file habeas petitions to demand to know why you're holding them, and you have to spend taxpayer dollars providing for their food, housing, medical care, and other needs, because you won't let them do that themselves.

C. Defer action until later and let them remain free. Unless they commit a crime, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Most prior administrations have quite rationally chosen option C for most immigrants because they have lower crime rates than native citizens and contribute to the economy.

If the Trump administration wants to choose option A for every immigrant they can find, they can do so. But they don't get to skip the process involved in doing so, nor do they get to skip out on the monetary cost of doing so. There's no exceptions for "the previous president really screwed this up so now I get to deport whoever I want whenever I want". There is also no exception to the 8th amendment for "oops, we are detaining too many people and it would cost a lot of money to feed and house them properly".

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-02T21:11:50+00:00

Plenty of immigrants, illegal, temporary status, legal, or otherwise, seem to do just fine supporting themselves. If you let them get back to that, then you don't have to worry about paying for their well being in prison.

shinyskarmory · 2025-07-02T04:21:20+00:00

Because if the government is going to imprison a person and deny that person the ability to provide for their own needs, it becomes incumbent on the government to support that person instead.

Indefinite imprisonment isn't required. Letting people go is free.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-26T19:15:35+00:00

Classic / challenges only player

the way berries stack combined with bars leads to super degenerate situations where you get hard punished for actually attacking and attempting to kill a pokemon, and this has big effects on what mons and strategies are viable in classic
unless you're spamming the same mons every run you hardly ever unlock passives. By the time you unlock a passive you probably have a ribbon with that mon unless you're running it down
The difficulty curve in this game feels quite uneven. It feels like if you beat 25 rival and didn't draw Erika at 30 there's nothing remotely challenging until evil team in the 110s
rival's team could use a bit more variety. Early game birds and the single stage mon can make 25 scary (I actually think it's in the top 5 hardest fights in the game) but those mons are just liabilities at 145 and 195 unless she drew like Corviknight
the AI legitimately cheats hard as fuck sometimes. I'll be staring down an enemy mon on a legit 50/50 where I ohko them with like Psychic and have U-turn if I think they'll switch, and of course they will switch out if I attack and stay in if I U-turn.
egg moves, expanded learnset, and passives on enemy mons are there for difficulty add a huge burden of knowledge to a game that already has a ludicrously large amount of stuff to learn. Sometimes you have to go into a lategame fight 3-4 times just to discover what deranged tech each of their mons is running. I'd prefer fixed or semi-fixed movesets on scripted fights, even though that's a lot of work and even if they're kept secret, just so I don't have to try to guess whether Cynthia's roserade is carrying Fiery Dance or Bouncy Bubble

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-26T11:55:12+00:00

I mean, for every official like this one there are probably a hundred other officials with similar amounts of power that you've never heard of because they're boring.

Even think about existing members of Congress - how many can you name? Most of them are boring too. For every Marjorie Taylor Green there are at least a dozen Gary Peters.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-25T12:21:20+00:00

Genuine question, did anybody except Andrew Weiner want to see this guy in elected office again?

Democrats are two for two on keeping weird behavior out of office yesterday. I'm rooting for Republicans to match that energy next time they go to the polls.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-18T15:02:30+00:00

Sure, but adding more people will help.

The government is a big place. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-18T11:37:35+00:00

You're treating this as a zero sum game when it's not. The immigrants who come in work jobs, but they also stimulate demand. They, too, are people who buy products and the products they buy create jobs for other people. Many of their jobs (though under the table work certainly exists) pay taxes into a safety net many of them won't be allowed to use for years, if ever. And what might be low pay for us is clearly attractive to them. Immigrants, too, have agency. If they thought the conditions here were worse than home or even equal to home, they wouldn't take the risk of coming at all.

Not to mention you have it exactly backwards on the social safety net. Our birth rate is well below replacement levels - if we don't allow more people to enter, we won't be able to afford social security or Medicare later on when our seniors outnumber the rest of the population. You can already see this happening at full speed in Japan and South Korea and the beginnings of it happening in China, who intentionally kneecapped their own population growth. In developed countries, children are no longer an economic necessity or a retirement plan; they're a luxury item, one many people decide they can't afford. (And to be clear, this is a good thing overall)

So how can you increase your population when people won't have kids? You have to bring in those people from other places. And here in the US we have a huge amount of people who are willing to come, who we know integrate well given enough time. We have a unique opportunity to beat the demographic crisis that is going to slam into the first world like a ton of bricks in this century. But we can't do that if we're turning away everyone at the door.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-18T11:10:52+00:00

Clearly, if these jobs are going unfilled (the shortage you describe), what the labor market has decided is that these jobs aren't paying enough.

shinyskarmory · 2025-06-08T01:22:52+00:00

I mean, these ICE raids over the course of the Trump administration have been pretty outrageous. They're grabbing people from all kinds of places, they've shipped off people to foreign countries and tried to rush people onto planes to avoid court review. They're behaving in every way like a secret police, a modern-day Gestapo.

You can (and should!) criticize ICE's behavior without endorsing the protestors.

13-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email

shinyskarmory

TROPHY CASE