I'll be honest, I have no problem with ICE in theory. I just have an issue with the way it's implemented. A few things make sense to me: -You can't have unsecured or "open" borders when you have...
I'll be honest, I have no problem with ICE in theory. I just have an issue with the way it's implemented.
A few things make sense to me:
-You can't have unsecured or "open" borders when you have massive economic disparity between neighboring countries.
-The best way to stop illegal immigration is to reduce the push factors in countries of origin by investing heavily in their success and helping them become pleasant places to live. The second best way is to have strong border security, and "easy" paths to legal immigration/seasonal work.
-It makes sense to keep policing separate from immigration policing. They're different issues and I do think policing should be more community based. Immigration is always going to be political and sensitive.
-ICE agents should be half cop, half social worker. They should be highly-paid, highly-educated professionals who have empathy. They should not be excited to do their job in a primal way. They should see it as a solemn duty that they do reluctantly for a greater good.
That said, Donald Trump is a fascist and he's just using them as his brown shirts. We have been really shitty neighbors to the folks down South and Trump's rise to power is at least partly a consequence of that.
We had INS before and they'd tried to push the Amigo not La Migra line for a while, their goal was to help people find paths to legal statuses, not try to catch people out. They were not angels,...
We had INS before and they'd tried to push the Amigo not La Migra line for a while, their goal was to help people find paths to legal statuses, not try to catch people out. They were not angels, but the mission was different.
ICE is the same exact agency as INS. They just moved it to the newly created DHS and (slightly) changed the name. It's the exact same people, virtually the same structure, and with the same...
ICE is the same exact agency as INS. They just moved it to the newly created DHS and (slightly) changed the name. It's the exact same people, virtually the same structure, and with the same mission. Getting rid of ICE would literally just be changing the name to something else.
INS used to also do what USCIS did, the purpose of the agency wasn't just enforcement. It's also, over twenty years later, no longer all the same people and IMO if one was trying to reform the...
INS used to also do what USCIS did, the purpose of the agency wasn't just enforcement.
It's also, over twenty years later, no longer all the same people and IMO if one was trying to reform the agency at this stage it would need to be rebuilt not just renamed. In the same way the most effective rebuilding of police departments seem to occur when the dept dissolves and everyone has to be reinterviewed
It's 20 years later, yes, but when the transition happened, they just changed their email signatures and office stationary. It was all of the same people doing the same job, with as you mentioned,...
It's 20 years later, yes, but when the transition happened, they just changed their email signatures and office stationary. It was all of the same people doing the same job, with as you mentioned, certain responsibilities transferred to different agencies.
The reason ICE has a bad rap is because of what they've been directed to do. It's not like ICE regularly goes off the reservation and just decides to be assholes for no reason. They're an executive agency, and they follow the direction of the executive in charge of them. The reason why they've been so cruel over the past 20 years is that since 9/11, being cruel to immigrants is what has won elections. The reason they're currently behaving like psychopaths is because they have a psychopath as a boss. The only thing you'd need to do to make them more humane is to elect a humane president.
A rebranding might be a good symbolic gesture, but the main thing that gets them to stop being assholes is to stop ordering them to be assholes.
I don't think they only have the bad reputation because of who their bosses are/what those bosses tell them to do. They're law enforcement specifically an agency targeting some of the more...
The reason ICE has a bad rap is because of what they've been directed to do. It's not like ICE regularly goes off the reservation and just decides to be assholes for no reason. They're an executive agency, and they follow the direction of the executive in charge of them. The reason why they've been so cruel over the past 20 years is that since 9/11, being cruel to immigrants is what has won elections. The reason they're currently behaving like psychopaths is because they have a psychopath as a boss. The only thing you'd need to do to make them more humane is to elect a humane president.
A rebranding might be a good symbolic gesture, but the main thing that gets them to stop being assholes is to stop ordering them to be assholes.
I don't think they only have the bad reputation because of who their bosses are/what those bosses tell them to do. They're law enforcement specifically an agency targeting some of the more vulnerable people here. INS, while trying to bridge that perception gap, wasn't rainbows and unicorns either. Their goals were still different though.
We have a movement of people who believe that law enforcement writ large is so broken and inherently violent and discriminatory as a system that it shouldn't exist. Some folks meant Defund Police as a "reprioritize the money argument" and some folks meant "no really actually defund them". I could make a pretty strong case myself that abolishing ICE in any form would lead to less net harm than allowing it to continue existing.
You can't just stop ordering them to be assholes, you also have to punish people for still being assholes. It's the same issue with a police force that doesn't tell you to rough up suspects for disrespect or to escalate situations rather than de-escalate, but protects the ones that do from consequences. That's why I say this is bigger than a rebrand/rename, it's about the people who will fire tear gas and rubber bullets on protestors (and yeah that includes the LAPD and other agencies too.). And who wear masks in the line of duty, even as plain clothes agents that shouldn't be allowed.
I certainly don't trust the ICE agents wearing ill fitting vests and gear who seem like they're contractors or something else on their first day. There's been an additional level of inexperience/unprofessionalism recently that highlights the people who are choosing to go into this work, and IMO why they're choosing that. Someone signed up to work for ICE now should be looked at very hard.
Because extreme poverty and lack of education don't create conditions for liberal democracy and people who immigrate for economic reasons don't always respect or understand that. As a...
Exemplary
Because extreme poverty and lack of education don't create conditions for liberal democracy and people who immigrate for economic reasons don't always respect or understand that.
As a bleeding-heart liberal myself, I know that we have a lot of empathy. We tend to believe that everyone is a liberal deep down even if some just haven't found their way yet. They aren't. And unfortunately the right wingers - when you speak to the ones who aren't just racist morons - are at least somewhat correct about "assimilation" being a necessary part of immigration.
You can't let massive numbers of people who, for example, fundamentally disagree with the concept of women's rights come into a country that values women. The same goes for LGBT rights. So, no, I don't particularly want a large number of conservative Muslims or Christian fundamentalists immigrating to my city unless they are willing to assimilate to some meaningful degree. If you can't change them, they will instead change your country.
The left is often flabbergasted by immigrants who join ICE or who are against illegal immigration. But if you talk to those folks, they will tell you their reasoning and I think it's disingenuous when we pretend they couldn't possibly have a good understanding of what they've experienced. They will often tell you something like, "a lot of the people who want to come here are the same people who made my country suck so bad that I left my home. Trust me bro, you have no idea."
People who are shielded from the reality of immigration tend to see it as purely good or purely horrible. People who see it up close have a more nuanced view. There are legitimate, logistical issues with money and culture as they relate to immigration.
Currently, South Korea is happy to take refugees from NK because there aren't many and the ones who come tend to do so for cultural and ideological reasons (controlled immigration). If NK collapses, you can guarantee there will be no country on Earth that wants to deal with the logistical nightmare of assimilating a huge number of uneducated and brainwashed North Koreans (uncontrolled immigration).
Anyway, before I start rambling I'll just wrap it up and reiterate that you don't want to create a situation in which large numbers of desperate people are immigrating purely for financial reasons. You want immigrants who bring the best parts of their culture and leave their baggage at home.
ICE isn't the problem so much as it is this idea that police can recklessly make life ending mistakes and still hold a job. A doctor messes up and they can he sued or arrested. A lawyer 9r...
ICE isn't the problem so much as it is this idea that police can recklessly make life ending mistakes and still hold a job. A doctor messes up and they can he sued or arrested. A lawyer 9r engineer messes up and loses their license to practice. Even proper military has to deal with court Marshaling.
These ice and police needs to be held accountable as well. Do something against training and get heavily punished. Do even minor actions with malice and you're out for good. That and better training regimen (alongside the obvious need to weed out the corrupt).
Every current or former serviceman I’ve ever spoken with or read the opinion of on this matter has made it pretty clear that their work is projecting American force around the world and not...
Every current or former serviceman I’ve ever spoken with or read the opinion of on this matter has made it pretty clear that their work is projecting American force around the world and not policing the homeland. I’d imagine they would be quite reserved knowing that a single death or controversial mishap could trigger an actual armed civil conflict. No one in their right mind wants that.
Edit: deleted the shade I threw at police because it’s too serious a matter and I have friends that are cops and are not the kinds of people to shoot civilians just because they’ve picked up an electric scooter and look likely to throw it at something.
It's all in the playbook, the idea is to increase tensions until he can justify martial law. We are in an armed civil conflict, people are torching cars and getting shot at, it's just currently...
It's all in the playbook, the idea is to increase tensions until he can justify martial law.
We are in an armed civil conflict, people are torching cars and getting shot at, it's just currently contained.
I really recommend anyone with the capability to get out. Even beyond the obvious explosion in violence coming, we also have a hopefully just recession and not full on depression in the pipeline. Some friends (notably Jewish) parents are off to Panama soon. They have reasonable concern they can't afford to stay retired in the US so getting somewhere cheap now.
This is why it's important to diffuse tensions by talking to people who have different views. The US military is full of ordinary people who are raised by and live around citizens, there are...
the idea is to increase tensions until he can justify martial law
This is why it's important to diffuse tensions by talking to people who have different views. The US military is full of ordinary people who are raised by and live around citizens, there are conservatives in liberal areas and liberals in conservative areas (California voted ~60/40 for Harris/Trump, Indiana voted ~60/40 for Trump/Harris), there are gay and Latino conservatives and white Christian liberals (and many people don't agree with every liberal or conservative view so even labeling them "liberal" or "conservative" is a big over-generalization). You won't get along with everyone from the other political side, but you're almost certainly getting along with some, even if you're not aware.
Plus, many of Trump's policies are bad because they hurt everyone. I doubt even the ultra-wealthy will avoid consequences (climate change, long-term research cuts, economic uncertainty...), certainly blue-collar Trump voters won't. If you talk with these people especially if things get worse, there's a good chance they will change their mind, some already have.
Also, why it's important to not obstruct, damage property, etc. and even stop others from doing so. Most of the owners of the cars and buildings around protest areas very likely didn't vote for Trump (in California), but even those who had, I don't believe that warrants random property damage.
While I hear what you're saying here, and a part of me feels compelled by the call for peaceful solidarity, context is really important. These LA protests have all started as community groups...
Exemplary
While I hear what you're saying here, and a part of me feels compelled by the call for peaceful solidarity, context is really important. These LA protests have all started as community groups getting together to try to protect local day laborers from targetted ICE raids (i.e., at a large Home Depot where they learned ICE was planning a raid). The protests start out as peaceful obstruction, then are inevitably escalated by ICE, who deploy flashbangs and pepper spray, and eventually some protestors begin to react, sometimes with violence in turn, sometimes via using surrounding property to attempt to physically obstruct or slow ICE agents.
In my opinion, it's completely unfair to ask people not to obstruct ICE raids. Even if the raids themselves are not illegal (which many of them are, lacking warrants or targeting legal residents and even citizens), the forced deportations without trial, especially to extrajudicial, transcontinental prisons, absolutely are. And perhaps more importantly than being illegal, they're extremely violent actions with lifelong repurcussions that are unlikely to ever be remedied.
It's simply not reasonable to ask people to step back and allow this to happen. Does it give Trump an excuse to escalate? It's not easy to say — his administration seems happy to escalate in any situation, whether or not there's an excuse. But, ultimately, people are going to defend themselves and their neighbors from unjust, lifelong imprisonment.
The numbers and media spin doesn't make it feasible either, if we're being honest. There's 10m people in LA. I've heard estimates of 600 protesters, not even a percent of a percent. And with how...
The numbers and media spin doesn't make it feasible either, if we're being honest. There's 10m people in LA. I've heard estimates of 600 protesters, not even a percent of a percent. And with how the media wants to spin it, it only takes a few people (another 1% of the 1% of the 1%) to make it seem like the entire city is on fire. You're not getting 600 unorganized people to all act perfectly in the face of the police, National Guard, and now potential Marines.
The optics for that is unlikely. Anyone on thr ground, focus on showing the police brutality, the thousand soldiers sleeping without food and water without orders, the reporters being shot at and detained. Focus on trumps words pretending he is the law and how he wants to arrest a sitting govener on the other side of the continent for "being elected governor".
Fun anecdote on this point - you don't need to damage property to be arrested for damaging property. In my city during the George Floyd protests, a handful of people were arrested for being on top...
Also, why it's important to not obstruct, damage property, etc. and even stop others from doing so. Most of the owners of the cars and buildings around protest areas very likely didn't vote for Trump (in California), but even those who had, I don't believe that warrants random property damage.
Fun anecdote on this point - you don't need to damage property to be arrested for damaging property. In my city during the George Floyd protests, a handful of people were arrested for being on top of a semi trailer under the explanation that they were damaging the trailer. The local news used it as a narrative that people were climbing on random vehicles.
They were invited onto the trailer by the owner, who himself was at the protests.
For those who are unfamiliar with the size and layout of Los Angeles, this reddit post does a great job of highlighting the scope of the protests. There's also this interactive from the NY Times...
For those who are unfamiliar with the size and layout of Los Angeles, this reddit post does a great job of highlighting the scope of the protests. There's also this interactive from the NY Times which includes the Paramount protests/response, but the graphics on the map of LA still make them seem bigger. You could walk around most of downtown and not realize anything was going on, outside of a few additional helicopters. Everywhere else is pretty much normal, except maybe for the fear of additional ICE raids. And while the crowds at the protests have been significant, they haven't been any bigger than your average Lakers game.
How the Trump administration - and to a lesser extent, the media - is treating this like it's 1992 is totally insane and deeply frustrating.
Not American. I must ask: that's a big deal, right? IDK, Americans seem a little apathetic to that stuff. Perhaps the lack of democratic break in American history makes people think democracy can...
Not American. I must ask: that's a big deal, right? IDK, Americans seem a little apathetic to that stuff. Perhaps the lack of democratic break in American history makes people think democracy can resist anything. It absolutely cannot. Looking from Latin America... I'm scared, guys.
Yes, but also maybe no. Time will tell. The TACO memes about Trump always chickening out hold some truth, and if he were a smarter person I would even say it was intentional. Trump is a pro at...
Yes, but also maybe no. Time will tell. The TACO memes about Trump always chickening out hold some truth, and if he were a smarter person I would even say it was intentional. Trump is a pro at taking things right to the line and then backing down. Based on past events, I am assuming that the troops will arrive and do nothing. It'll blow over and be another dent in our democracy.
He's playing a dangerous game though, because if/when he finally does step a toe over the line (i.e., a soldier actually shoots a civilian), Americans are going to go apeshit. A lot of people think America is fertile ground for authoritarianism, but I'm not so sure that I agree with that - nor do I think Trump is the guy who can do it. I say this for three reasons:
Most of the people who are cheering Trump on don't actually want fascism. They're wildly uninformed and brainwashed. When push comes to shove, when their gay children and Mexican neighbors are being oppressed, the majority of them start saying, "I voted for Trump, but I didn't vote for this." They live in a fantasy land that can only last as long as they don't feel real consequences.
I want to be very careful how I word this next bit, and I'm not sure I'll be able to fully encapsulate it here, so please try to take my meaning. America is the land of extremes. Extreme independence, extreme free speech, extreme capitalism, etc. We are just about the only country in the world where an armed man can legally stand in public and yell "fuck you" right in cops face while calling the president himself a worthless piece of shit. It's a large and diverse country, so of course there are exceptions to this rule where a bad cop and a bad judge end up putting this hypothetical man in jail. But broadly speaking, the "American way" encourages this type of behavior. The Jews in Germany reported to the train stations on time when they were summoned. Their situation was vastly different and they did not have the societal scaffolding which would enable them to do anything else. But we would need decades and decades of build-up before that would happen in America. Americans are the cockiest, dumbest, loudest, most "fuck you" people on Earth for better or worse. I have spent time in our hoods, our suburbs, and our trailer parks - no matter where you go in America, you will find that this attitude runs deep. When push comes to shove, I think you'll see crips and cowboys with pistols and bricks fighting side by side.
Trump is bad at populism. The only way to avoid the things I listed above is to keep us divided and "trick" the people who aren't being impacted. But he is pissing all over everyone. He is screwing over people with disabilities, old folks on SS, veterans, people with college loans, and more. He is not doing the classic "will of the people" thing and enacting policies that will make the masses love him. He keeps crossing lines and I do think people will lose it the second he crosses that ultimate line.
I think a large number of Americans would cheer on the military turning on civilians so long as its in an urban, Democratic-led center. Open any twitter or facebook thread discussing what's...
I think a large number of Americans would cheer on the military turning on civilians so long as its in an urban, Democratic-led center. Open any twitter or facebook thread discussing what's happening in LA right now and you will find people baying for blood. If the information they are getting is that LA is anarchy right now, with members of the police and military being assaulted, and businesses and property burned, I think a large number will view any casualties as people getting what is coming to them.
At Kent State, in the 70s, many people supported the NG at the time (now of course we look back at this as a tragedy). Kyle Rittenhouse became a right wing hero in 2020 for shooting protestors. I see no reason to think military members who open fire would not be viewed as heroes on the right.
There are front page stories about the terrible things Trump is doing every single day. The media does its job. It just doesn't seem to have much effect.
There are front page stories about the terrible things Trump is doing every single day. The media does its job. It just doesn't seem to have much effect.
The bad things Trump does do get reported on, but often times after being sane-washed, or lacking adequate context to help an uninformed reader weigh competing claims being made. If Trump orders...
The bad things Trump does do get reported on, but often times after being sane-washed, or lacking adequate context to help an uninformed reader weigh competing claims being made. If Trump orders something illegal, and it is reported as a "dispute" or "side-stepping legal limits" or "exerting new authorities" or whatever other euphemisms for illegality are preferred by the press, then I would argue the media is not doing its job, if its job is to keep the populace informed.
The broader issue is that large segments of the populace have siloed themselves into ideologically similar bubbles and do not consume news from things outside of that bubble. This is the Fox News homepage right now. For people who consume this, and are exposed to the broader right-wing media sphere (including podcasters, influencers, etc), what are they to think of what is happening in LA and the response to it? If a military unit opens fire on civilians, what is the likelihood it is accurate reportedly and not couched in language akin to "x casualities were reported after a military unit was ambushed by protestors who the police/army/authorities say were armed and belligerent"?
I'm not sure there's anything legacy media could do to right this ship, so to speak. If someone already considers The New York Times mendacious, that person certainly isn't going to engage...
I'm not sure there's anything legacy media could do to right this ship, so to speak. If someone already considers The New York Times mendacious, that person certainly isn't going to engage constructively with the non-sane-washed framing.
But that issue is marginal compared to the prevailing lack of media literacy. We could spent all day hypothesizing on what should be best practices for journalists, but I doubt most people even read newspapers -- they scroll through their social media feeds, watch some reaction clips, and maybe skim the headlines while leaving the details to their imagination. They'll see a video of a burning car and extrapolate that scene to a city on fire.
I don't really see a solution here. The obvious one would be to penalize social media companies for allowing misinformation to be disseminated, but that proposal is a non-starter in our current political environment, and even if such a law were implemented, it could easily be exploited to worsen our misinformation crisis.
Yeah, "the media" is pretty vague. I should say, the Washington Post and the other newspapers I read starting from Google News seem to be doing their jobs. But if people are watching Fox News,...
Yeah, "the media" is pretty vague. I should say, the Washington Post and the other newspapers I read starting from Google News seem to be doing their jobs. But if people are watching Fox News, it's more like they're on the wrong side.
Given Bezos is censoring the opinions pages, arguably one of the lowest stakes part of a newspaper since many don't consider it real journalism, that makes me wary of how much the articles will...
Given Bezos is censoring the opinions pages, arguably one of the lowest stakes part of a newspaper since many don't consider it real journalism, that makes me wary of how much the articles will contain...
Even if the tone doesn't shift to worshipping Trump and full-blown propaganda, it will likely just not report on really bad things unless it hits mainstream awareness (e.g. it gets talked about on the national news for two minutes). With Trump and his admin, even honest, neutral reporting of facts can be construed as criticism and negative. So I expect the articles' content and details to also dwindle.
I think if he starts interfering with reporting then we’ll hear about it. It would be a significant change, and the journalists at the Washington Post are unlikely to keep quiet about it.
I think if he starts interfering with reporting then we’ll hear about it. It would be a significant change, and the journalists at the Washington Post are unlikely to keep quiet about it.
Journalists tend to be outspoken, touchy about interference, and have friends at other publications who would be happy to run a story about their complaints. I’m just expecting some of them to do...
Journalists tend to be outspoken, touchy about interference, and have friends at other publications who would be happy to run a story about their complaints. I’m just expecting some of them to do what comes naturally. It’s the people who expect them to keep a big story a secret who have something to explain.
I peeked over at r/conservative today (for some reason) and saw typical conservative posts about the protests being violent and there is looting. Maybe they think that excuses illegally deploying...
I peeked over at r/conservative today (for some reason) and saw typical conservative posts about the protests being violent and there is looting. Maybe they think that excuses illegally deploying the military to smash a manufactured crisis.
These are the same dudes talking about 2nd amendment because they were asked to wear masks during covid. Or maybe they aren't the same dudes, for all I know it's 90% bots.
Here is me wanting for all of that to be true. Americans may be the most "fuck you" people on Earth (I'm not really sure, but let's assume they are). But one reason they are like that is because...
Here is me wanting for all of that to be true.
Americans may be the most "fuck you" people on Earth (I'm not really sure, but let's assume they are). But one reason they are like that is because there's not a rifle pointing at them. By which I mean: it is one thing to demonstrate force during peacetime. It is another entirely to do the same once the force of the state is against you.
I am not saying that to offend Americans. During our dictatorship most Brazilians, including my parents, laid low and stayed out of trouble. That is just self preservation. I don't judge my parents and I wouldn't judge Americans for doing the same.
If it's any consolation: I personally don't think Trump has the loyalty of the military to go full dictatorship through military force. After mocking Biden's son who died on military service, his...
If it's any consolation: I personally don't think Trump has the loyalty of the military to go full dictatorship through military force. After mocking Biden's son who died on military service, his own 'bone spurs' to avoid going to Vietnam, SignalGate, disrespect of America's allies when many of them have been there before... it's a long list. And while you can replace some of the top, when the people who are being send to the place have to sleep on the floor en masse (no really no joke, see this, even with paywall you can see some of the pictures: https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/national-guard-california-photos-20368334.php)
Now, they're being deployed to protests instead of doing what they were trained for. Imagine being a soldier in that situation, even if you held conservative beliefs: would you be loyal to Trump?
You don't generally need the support of soldiers to take over a country. All you need is the support of the uper echelon. More specifically, the support of some particularly admired and...
You don't generally need the support of soldiers to take over a country. All you need is the support of the uper echelon. More specifically, the support of some particularly admired and charismatic members of the high command.
The entire goal and philosophy of militarism is to suppress individuality and reinforce adherence to an institution.
even if you held conservative beliefs: would you be loyal to Trump?
Perhaps not but they would most likely follow orders.
Most soldiers are neither constitutional lawyers nor philosophers of war.
It's not that easy to find news articles about what the National Guard or the Marines are doing (versus the LA Police). Supposedly they are deployed to guard federal property, for now, anyway. It...
It's not that easy to find news articles about what the National Guard or the Marines are doing (versus the LA Police). Supposedly they are deployed to guard federal property, for now, anyway. It at least leaves open the possibility of avoiding direct confrontation, if both sides act with restraint.
Trump's rhetoric is very much "bring it on" but people on the ground might act differently.
In watching some of the live videos is was very notable to see national guard holding shields but it was LAPD who were holding the tear gas canister... shooter things. I do not have words...
In watching some of the live videos is was very notable to see national guard holding shields but it was LAPD who were holding the tear gas canister... shooter things. I do not have words currently. It suggests to me that the military is (or at least was) being very careful to stay within their legal scope. But no, I couldn't find any reporting on that for example, and I have been disconnected so I haven't seen more today.
Journalists getting injured isn't going to help that either.
Not surprised that LAPD are doing the most harm. Honestly it would have been smart for Newsom to deploy the National Guard ahead of Trump. Then he'd be in control of the situation instead of...
Not surprised that LAPD are doing the most harm.
Honestly it would have been smart for Newsom to deploy the National Guard ahead of Trump. Then he'd be in control of the situation instead of watching from the sidelines as the White House gives orders.
Given the amount of protests I'd say there are many who are not apathetic - though I think there's also a large group who has been made apathetic by the barrage of actions by Cheetolino 2.0. From...
Given the amount of protests I'd say there are many who are not apathetic - though I think there's also a large group who has been made apathetic by the barrage of actions by Cheetolino 2.0.
From a historical perspective though, yeah it is. And given you're from Latin America you know probably know that better than me... I feel your fear as someone from Europe though. It's like watching a crash in slow motion. Heavy, fast, destructive... yet somehow slowly too.
Good points. And yes, I absolutely know how fragile democracy really is. I was born in the last decade of the Brazilian dictatorship. I was way too young to know what it feels like to live in a...
Good points.
And yes, I absolutely know how fragile democracy really is. I was born in the last decade of the Brazilian dictatorship. I was way too young to know what it feels like to live in a dictatorship, but my parents most certainly know.
America is a huge country. Even if all of the 10m in LA was affected (it's not even close. I'm on the outskirts, but also have friends actually downtown doing their daily routine), that's 10m out...
America is a huge country. Even if all of the 10m in LA was affected (it's not even close. I'm on the outskirts, but also have friends actually downtown doing their daily routine), that's 10m out of 330m spread across the 4th largest geography. We're just too sparse for any single city issue to affect the country unless it's 9/11 levels of unexpected.
The other sad fact is that a lot of people don't care or are even rooting for this. That's why any us news coverage is very mixed on this b
Our only real hope is that the courts injunction this quickly and get the troops out of there fast. Even the LAPD said this was mostly peaceful and under control. As others have said, your average...
Our only real hope is that the courts injunction this quickly and get the troops out of there fast. Even the LAPD said this was mostly peaceful and under control. As others have said, your average sports game upset has more rioting than what goes on here.
At the same time I do hope they keep fighting. If worst comes to worst, we can't just leave this sitting down.
I'm just wondering how large the civilian protestor body count is going to have to be before someone puts the brakes on ICE's current modus operandi. In the current climate with this...
I'm just wondering how large the civilian protestor body count is going to have to be before someone puts the brakes on ICE's current modus operandi. In the current climate with this administration, I fear that number will be rather high.
We seriously need to abolish ICE, and ensure this can never happen again.
I'll be honest, I have no problem with ICE in theory. I just have an issue with the way it's implemented.
A few things make sense to me:
-You can't have unsecured or "open" borders when you have massive economic disparity between neighboring countries.
-The best way to stop illegal immigration is to reduce the push factors in countries of origin by investing heavily in their success and helping them become pleasant places to live. The second best way is to have strong border security, and "easy" paths to legal immigration/seasonal work.
-It makes sense to keep policing separate from immigration policing. They're different issues and I do think policing should be more community based. Immigration is always going to be political and sensitive.
-ICE agents should be half cop, half social worker. They should be highly-paid, highly-educated professionals who have empathy. They should not be excited to do their job in a primal way. They should see it as a solemn duty that they do reluctantly for a greater good.
That said, Donald Trump is a fascist and he's just using them as his brown shirts. We have been really shitty neighbors to the folks down South and Trump's rise to power is at least partly a consequence of that.
We had INS before and they'd tried to push the Amigo not La Migra line for a while, their goal was to help people find paths to legal statuses, not try to catch people out. They were not angels, but the mission was different.
At this point, idk if ICE is redeemable
ICE is the same exact agency as INS. They just moved it to the newly created DHS and (slightly) changed the name. It's the exact same people, virtually the same structure, and with the same mission. Getting rid of ICE would literally just be changing the name to something else.
INS used to also do what USCIS did, the purpose of the agency wasn't just enforcement.
It's also, over twenty years later, no longer all the same people and IMO if one was trying to reform the agency at this stage it would need to be rebuilt not just renamed. In the same way the most effective rebuilding of police departments seem to occur when the dept dissolves and everyone has to be reinterviewed
It's 20 years later, yes, but when the transition happened, they just changed their email signatures and office stationary. It was all of the same people doing the same job, with as you mentioned, certain responsibilities transferred to different agencies.
The reason ICE has a bad rap is because of what they've been directed to do. It's not like ICE regularly goes off the reservation and just decides to be assholes for no reason. They're an executive agency, and they follow the direction of the executive in charge of them. The reason why they've been so cruel over the past 20 years is that since 9/11, being cruel to immigrants is what has won elections. The reason they're currently behaving like psychopaths is because they have a psychopath as a boss. The only thing you'd need to do to make them more humane is to elect a humane president.
A rebranding might be a good symbolic gesture, but the main thing that gets them to stop being assholes is to stop ordering them to be assholes.
I don't think they only have the bad reputation because of who their bosses are/what those bosses tell them to do. They're law enforcement specifically an agency targeting some of the more vulnerable people here. INS, while trying to bridge that perception gap, wasn't rainbows and unicorns either. Their goals were still different though.
We have a movement of people who believe that law enforcement writ large is so broken and inherently violent and discriminatory as a system that it shouldn't exist. Some folks meant Defund Police as a "reprioritize the money argument" and some folks meant "no really actually defund them". I could make a pretty strong case myself that abolishing ICE in any form would lead to less net harm than allowing it to continue existing.
You can't just stop ordering them to be assholes, you also have to punish people for still being assholes. It's the same issue with a police force that doesn't tell you to rough up suspects for disrespect or to escalate situations rather than de-escalate, but protects the ones that do from consequences. That's why I say this is bigger than a rebrand/rename, it's about the people who will fire tear gas and rubber bullets on protestors (and yeah that includes the LAPD and other agencies too.). And who wear masks in the line of duty, even as plain clothes agents that shouldn't be allowed.
I certainly don't trust the ICE agents wearing ill fitting vests and gear who seem like they're contractors or something else on their first day. There's been an additional level of inexperience/unprofessionalism recently that highlights the people who are choosing to go into this work, and IMO why they're choosing that. Someone signed up to work for ICE now should be looked at very hard.
Why?
Because extreme poverty and lack of education don't create conditions for liberal democracy and people who immigrate for economic reasons don't always respect or understand that.
As a bleeding-heart liberal myself, I know that we have a lot of empathy. We tend to believe that everyone is a liberal deep down even if some just haven't found their way yet. They aren't. And unfortunately the right wingers - when you speak to the ones who aren't just racist morons - are at least somewhat correct about "assimilation" being a necessary part of immigration.
You can't let massive numbers of people who, for example, fundamentally disagree with the concept of women's rights come into a country that values women. The same goes for LGBT rights. So, no, I don't particularly want a large number of conservative Muslims or Christian fundamentalists immigrating to my city unless they are willing to assimilate to some meaningful degree. If you can't change them, they will instead change your country.
The left is often flabbergasted by immigrants who join ICE or who are against illegal immigration. But if you talk to those folks, they will tell you their reasoning and I think it's disingenuous when we pretend they couldn't possibly have a good understanding of what they've experienced. They will often tell you something like, "a lot of the people who want to come here are the same people who made my country suck so bad that I left my home. Trust me bro, you have no idea."
People who are shielded from the reality of immigration tend to see it as purely good or purely horrible. People who see it up close have a more nuanced view. There are legitimate, logistical issues with money and culture as they relate to immigration.
Currently, South Korea is happy to take refugees from NK because there aren't many and the ones who come tend to do so for cultural and ideological reasons (controlled immigration). If NK collapses, you can guarantee there will be no country on Earth that wants to deal with the logistical nightmare of assimilating a huge number of uneducated and brainwashed North Koreans (uncontrolled immigration).
Anyway, before I start rambling I'll just wrap it up and reiterate that you don't want to create a situation in which large numbers of desperate people are immigrating purely for financial reasons. You want immigrants who bring the best parts of their culture and leave their baggage at home.
Undoing citizens united would go a long way for the former. The latter is gonna be a difficult road no matter what.
ICE isn't the problem so much as it is this idea that police can recklessly make life ending mistakes and still hold a job. A doctor messes up and they can he sued or arrested. A lawyer 9r engineer messes up and loses their license to practice. Even proper military has to deal with court Marshaling.
These ice and police needs to be held accountable as well. Do something against training and get heavily punished. Do even minor actions with malice and you're out for good. That and better training regimen (alongside the obvious need to weed out the corrupt).
Every current or former serviceman I’ve ever spoken with or read the opinion of on this matter has made it pretty clear that their work is projecting American force around the world and not policing the homeland. I’d imagine they would be quite reserved knowing that a single death or controversial mishap could trigger an actual armed civil conflict. No one in their right mind wants that.
Edit: deleted the shade I threw at police because it’s too serious a matter and I have friends that are cops and are not the kinds of people to shoot civilians just because they’ve picked up an electric scooter and look likely to throw it at something.
It's all in the playbook, the idea is to increase tensions until he can justify martial law.
We are in an armed civil conflict, people are torching cars and getting shot at, it's just currently contained.
I really recommend anyone with the capability to get out. Even beyond the obvious explosion in violence coming, we also have a hopefully just recession and not full on depression in the pipeline. Some friends (notably Jewish) parents are off to Panama soon. They have reasonable concern they can't afford to stay retired in the US so getting somewhere cheap now.
This is why it's important to diffuse tensions by talking to people who have different views. The US military is full of ordinary people who are raised by and live around citizens, there are conservatives in liberal areas and liberals in conservative areas (California voted ~60/40 for Harris/Trump, Indiana voted ~60/40 for Trump/Harris), there are gay and Latino conservatives and white Christian liberals (and many people don't agree with every liberal or conservative view so even labeling them "liberal" or "conservative" is a big over-generalization). You won't get along with everyone from the other political side, but you're almost certainly getting along with some, even if you're not aware.
Plus, many of Trump's policies are bad because they hurt everyone. I doubt even the ultra-wealthy will avoid consequences (climate change, long-term research cuts, economic uncertainty...), certainly blue-collar Trump voters won't. If you talk with these people especially if things get worse, there's a good chance they will change their mind, some already have.
Also, why it's important to not obstruct, damage property, etc. and even stop others from doing so. Most of the owners of the cars and buildings around protest areas very likely didn't vote for Trump (in California), but even those who had, I don't believe that warrants random property damage.
While I hear what you're saying here, and a part of me feels compelled by the call for peaceful solidarity, context is really important. These LA protests have all started as community groups getting together to try to protect local day laborers from targetted ICE raids (i.e., at a large Home Depot where they learned ICE was planning a raid). The protests start out as peaceful obstruction, then are inevitably escalated by ICE, who deploy flashbangs and pepper spray, and eventually some protestors begin to react, sometimes with violence in turn, sometimes via using surrounding property to attempt to physically obstruct or slow ICE agents.
In my opinion, it's completely unfair to ask people not to obstruct ICE raids. Even if the raids themselves are not illegal (which many of them are, lacking warrants or targeting legal residents and even citizens), the forced deportations without trial, especially to extrajudicial, transcontinental prisons, absolutely are. And perhaps more importantly than being illegal, they're extremely violent actions with lifelong repurcussions that are unlikely to ever be remedied.
It's simply not reasonable to ask people to step back and allow this to happen. Does it give Trump an excuse to escalate? It's not easy to say — his administration seems happy to escalate in any situation, whether or not there's an excuse. But, ultimately, people are going to defend themselves and their neighbors from unjust, lifelong imprisonment.
As The Onion so succinctly put it: “Protesters urged not to give Trump administration pretext for what it’s already doing”
The numbers and media spin doesn't make it feasible either, if we're being honest. There's 10m people in LA. I've heard estimates of 600 protesters, not even a percent of a percent. And with how the media wants to spin it, it only takes a few people (another 1% of the 1% of the 1%) to make it seem like the entire city is on fire. You're not getting 600 unorganized people to all act perfectly in the face of the police, National Guard, and now potential Marines.
The optics for that is unlikely. Anyone on thr ground, focus on showing the police brutality, the thousand soldiers sleeping without food and water without orders, the reporters being shot at and detained. Focus on trumps words pretending he is the law and how he wants to arrest a sitting govener on the other side of the continent for "being elected governor".
Fun anecdote on this point - you don't need to damage property to be arrested for damaging property. In my city during the George Floyd protests, a handful of people were arrested for being on top of a semi trailer under the explanation that they were damaging the trailer. The local news used it as a narrative that people were climbing on random vehicles.
They were invited onto the trailer by the owner, who himself was at the protests.
For those who are unfamiliar with the size and layout of Los Angeles, this reddit post does a great job of highlighting the scope of the protests. There's also this interactive from the NY Times which includes the Paramount protests/response, but the graphics on the map of LA still make them seem bigger. You could walk around most of downtown and not realize anything was going on, outside of a few additional helicopters. Everywhere else is pretty much normal, except maybe for the fear of additional ICE raids. And while the crowds at the protests have been significant, they haven't been any bigger than your average Lakers game.
How the Trump administration - and to a lesser extent, the media - is treating this like it's 1992 is totally insane and deeply frustrating.
Not American. I must ask: that's a big deal, right? IDK, Americans seem a little apathetic to that stuff. Perhaps the lack of democratic break in American history makes people think democracy can resist anything. It absolutely cannot. Looking from Latin America... I'm scared, guys.
Yes, but also maybe no. Time will tell. The TACO memes about Trump always chickening out hold some truth, and if he were a smarter person I would even say it was intentional. Trump is a pro at taking things right to the line and then backing down. Based on past events, I am assuming that the troops will arrive and do nothing. It'll blow over and be another dent in our democracy.
He's playing a dangerous game though, because if/when he finally does step a toe over the line (i.e., a soldier actually shoots a civilian), Americans are going to go apeshit. A lot of people think America is fertile ground for authoritarianism, but I'm not so sure that I agree with that - nor do I think Trump is the guy who can do it. I say this for three reasons:
Most of the people who are cheering Trump on don't actually want fascism. They're wildly uninformed and brainwashed. When push comes to shove, when their gay children and Mexican neighbors are being oppressed, the majority of them start saying, "I voted for Trump, but I didn't vote for this." They live in a fantasy land that can only last as long as they don't feel real consequences.
I want to be very careful how I word this next bit, and I'm not sure I'll be able to fully encapsulate it here, so please try to take my meaning. America is the land of extremes. Extreme independence, extreme free speech, extreme capitalism, etc. We are just about the only country in the world where an armed man can legally stand in public and yell "fuck you" right in cops face while calling the president himself a worthless piece of shit. It's a large and diverse country, so of course there are exceptions to this rule where a bad cop and a bad judge end up putting this hypothetical man in jail. But broadly speaking, the "American way" encourages this type of behavior. The Jews in Germany reported to the train stations on time when they were summoned. Their situation was vastly different and they did not have the societal scaffolding which would enable them to do anything else. But we would need decades and decades of build-up before that would happen in America. Americans are the cockiest, dumbest, loudest, most "fuck you" people on Earth for better or worse. I have spent time in our hoods, our suburbs, and our trailer parks - no matter where you go in America, you will find that this attitude runs deep. When push comes to shove, I think you'll see crips and cowboys with pistols and bricks fighting side by side.
Trump is bad at populism. The only way to avoid the things I listed above is to keep us divided and "trick" the people who aren't being impacted. But he is pissing all over everyone. He is screwing over people with disabilities, old folks on SS, veterans, people with college loans, and more. He is not doing the classic "will of the people" thing and enacting policies that will make the masses love him. He keeps crossing lines and I do think people will lose it the second he crosses that ultimate line.
I think a large number of Americans would cheer on the military turning on civilians so long as its in an urban, Democratic-led center. Open any twitter or facebook thread discussing what's happening in LA right now and you will find people baying for blood. If the information they are getting is that LA is anarchy right now, with members of the police and military being assaulted, and businesses and property burned, I think a large number will view any casualties as people getting what is coming to them.
At Kent State, in the 70s, many people supported the NG at the time (now of course we look back at this as a tragedy). Kyle Rittenhouse became a right wing hero in 2020 for shooting protestors. I see no reason to think military members who open fire would not be viewed as heroes on the right.
There are front page stories about the terrible things Trump is doing every single day. The media does its job. It just doesn't seem to have much effect.
The bad things Trump does do get reported on, but often times after being sane-washed, or lacking adequate context to help an uninformed reader weigh competing claims being made. If Trump orders something illegal, and it is reported as a "dispute" or "side-stepping legal limits" or "exerting new authorities" or whatever other euphemisms for illegality are preferred by the press, then I would argue the media is not doing its job, if its job is to keep the populace informed.
The broader issue is that large segments of the populace have siloed themselves into ideologically similar bubbles and do not consume news from things outside of that bubble. This is the Fox News homepage right now. For people who consume this, and are exposed to the broader right-wing media sphere (including podcasters, influencers, etc), what are they to think of what is happening in LA and the response to it? If a military unit opens fire on civilians, what is the likelihood it is accurate reportedly and not couched in language akin to "x casualities were reported after a military unit was ambushed by protestors who the police/army/authorities say were armed and belligerent"?
I'm not sure there's anything legacy media could do to right this ship, so to speak. If someone already considers The New York Times mendacious, that person certainly isn't going to engage constructively with the non-sane-washed framing.
But that issue is marginal compared to the prevailing lack of media literacy. We could spent all day hypothesizing on what should be best practices for journalists, but I doubt most people even read newspapers -- they scroll through their social media feeds, watch some reaction clips, and maybe skim the headlines while leaving the details to their imagination. They'll see a video of a burning car and extrapolate that scene to a city on fire.
I don't really see a solution here. The obvious one would be to penalize social media companies for allowing misinformation to be disseminated, but that proposal is a non-starter in our current political environment, and even if such a law were implemented, it could easily be exploited to worsen our misinformation crisis.
Yeah, "the media" is pretty vague. I should say, the Washington Post and the other newspapers I read starting from Google News seem to be doing their jobs. But if people are watching Fox News, it's more like they're on the wrong side.
Yes, but I rarely read the opinion pages. News coverage seems unaffected so far.
Given Bezos is censoring the opinions pages, arguably one of the lowest stakes part of a newspaper since many don't consider it real journalism, that makes me wary of how much the articles will contain...
Even if the tone doesn't shift to worshipping Trump and full-blown propaganda, it will likely just not report on really bad things unless it hits mainstream awareness (e.g. it gets talked about on the national news for two minutes). With Trump and his admin, even honest, neutral reporting of facts can be construed as criticism and negative. So I expect the articles' content and details to also dwindle.
I think if he starts interfering with reporting then we’ll hear about it. It would be a significant change, and the journalists at the Washington Post are unlikely to keep quiet about it.
You really are a neverending font of faith in humankind
Journalists tend to be outspoken, touchy about interference, and have friends at other publications who would be happy to run a story about their complaints. I’m just expecting some of them to do what comes naturally. It’s the people who expect them to keep a big story a secret who have something to explain.
Yeah, that sure is how things used to be in the old world order for sure
Do you actually know anything about Washington Post journalists or is this just cheap cynicism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
I peeked over at r/conservative today (for some reason) and saw typical conservative posts about the protests being violent and there is looting. Maybe they think that excuses illegally deploying the military to smash a manufactured crisis.
These are the same dudes talking about 2nd amendment because they were asked to wear masks during covid. Or maybe they aren't the same dudes, for all I know it's 90% bots.
Here is me wanting for all of that to be true.
Americans may be the most "fuck you" people on Earth (I'm not really sure, but let's assume they are). But one reason they are like that is because there's not a rifle pointing at them. By which I mean: it is one thing to demonstrate force during peacetime. It is another entirely to do the same once the force of the state is against you.
I am not saying that to offend Americans. During our dictatorship most Brazilians, including my parents, laid low and stayed out of trouble. That is just self preservation. I don't judge my parents and I wouldn't judge Americans for doing the same.
If it's any consolation: I personally don't think Trump has the loyalty of the military to go full dictatorship through military force. After mocking Biden's son who died on military service, his own 'bone spurs' to avoid going to Vietnam, SignalGate, disrespect of America's allies when many of them have been there before... it's a long list. And while you can replace some of the top, when the people who are being send to the place have to sleep on the floor en masse (no really no joke, see this, even with paywall you can see some of the pictures: https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/national-guard-california-photos-20368334.php)
Now, they're being deployed to protests instead of doing what they were trained for. Imagine being a soldier in that situation, even if you held conservative beliefs: would you be loyal to Trump?
You don't generally need the support of soldiers to take over a country. All you need is the support of the uper echelon. More specifically, the support of some particularly admired and charismatic members of the high command.
The entire goal and philosophy of militarism is to suppress individuality and reinforce adherence to an institution.
Perhaps not but they would most likely follow orders.
Most soldiers are neither constitutional lawyers nor philosophers of war.
It's not that easy to find news articles about what the National Guard or the Marines are doing (versus the LA Police). Supposedly they are deployed to guard federal property, for now, anyway. It at least leaves open the possibility of avoiding direct confrontation, if both sides act with restraint.
Trump's rhetoric is very much "bring it on" but people on the ground might act differently.
In watching some of the live videos is was very notable to see national guard holding shields but it was LAPD who were holding the tear gas canister... shooter things. I do not have words currently. It suggests to me that the military is (or at least was) being very careful to stay within their legal scope. But no, I couldn't find any reporting on that for example, and I have been disconnected so I haven't seen more today.
Journalists getting injured isn't going to help that either.
Not surprised that LAPD are doing the most harm.
Honestly it would have been smart for Newsom to deploy the National Guard ahead of Trump. Then he'd be in control of the situation instead of watching from the sidelines as the White House gives orders.
They have been assisting with ICE arrests today.
Given the amount of protests I'd say there are many who are not apathetic - though I think there's also a large group who has been made apathetic by the barrage of actions by Cheetolino 2.0.
From a historical perspective though, yeah it is. And given you're from Latin America you know probably know that better than me... I feel your fear as someone from Europe though. It's like watching a crash in slow motion. Heavy, fast, destructive... yet somehow slowly too.
Good points.
And yes, I absolutely know how fragile democracy really is. I was born in the last decade of the Brazilian dictatorship. I was way too young to know what it feels like to live in a dictatorship, but my parents most certainly know.
Your that refers to sending in the marines? Yes. This is really rare.
America is a huge country. Even if all of the 10m in LA was affected (it's not even close. I'm on the outskirts, but also have friends actually downtown doing their daily routine), that's 10m out of 330m spread across the 4th largest geography. We're just too sparse for any single city issue to affect the country unless it's 9/11 levels of unexpected.
The other sad fact is that a lot of people don't care or are even rooting for this. That's why any us news coverage is very mixed on this b
You are correct, larger countries are more difficult to take over.
This article summarizes what most of us already know. That this a manufactured crisis and it’s well known that the response will escalate it.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/06/09/los-angeles-ice-national-guard-protests
Our only real hope is that the courts injunction this quickly and get the troops out of there fast. Even the LAPD said this was mostly peaceful and under control. As others have said, your average sports game upset has more rioting than what goes on here.
At the same time I do hope they keep fighting. If worst comes to worst, we can't just leave this sitting down.
I'm just wondering how large the civilian protestor body count is going to have to be before someone puts the brakes on ICE's current modus operandi. In the current climate with this administration, I fear that number will be rather high.