41
votes
Some of my family members aren't convinced that ICE isn't overstepping and that they are just deporting people that broke the law, can you help me share unbiased links that proves they are?
Some of the things they have claimed:
- The death's in Minnesota were because they provoked the ICE agents
- They are only deporting immigrants that are criminals or that didn't immigrate legally.
- There are biker gangs that take over streets that need to be stopped.
- Crime is down so it is a good thing.
- There are fewer drugs flowing into the country.
- ICE always deported criminals, but the left is focusing on it now to be anti-trump.
Educated left leaning people tend to think that if only we frame an argument the right way or show people the right piece of evidence we will be able to change people's minds. A lot of that probably comes from having had a challenging college education when after tons of reading many of us did change our minds on many topics. Be it by seeing a point of view we hadn't considered before or by understanding the complexities of an issue we previously thought simple. But we often don't realize that only people who want to learn can be persuaded with arguments. And friends and family, especially older ones, are very unlikely to have any interest in changing their minds. So it will be easy to rationalize or dismiss whatever you throw at them.
I found the book Don't Talk About Politics to be very informative on this topic. It is a good exploration into why our instinctive approach doesn't work as well as proposing approaches that can actually work in changing minds. But those take a lot more work than just writing or researching.
I think the core issue here is people are afraid of what will happen if they let in a conflicting idea. I'll admit I resist conflicting ideas, but I have let them in enough times. I quickly learned it's not really that painful to realize you were wrong. If only there was some way to make more people dull the pain of intellectual humility.
Maybe it's fear, but honestly I think it boils down to the fact that changing your mind is a lot of work.
We intuitively try to be consistent in an attempt to combat cognitive dissonance, which is a deeply uncomfortable place to be in.
Changing someone's mind about something fundemental then requires re-thinjing about a lot of things that that person has already settled on. That takes effort. It's easy for me to say that abortion is morally ok, but that's because I've thought about it for a long time and came up with the reasons why I think it's ok. If I were to be convicted of some fundemental fact contrary to what I already believe that would challenge that position, it would mean doing intellectual labor to reconcile that new belief. Most people just aren't interested in doing that sort of labor.
It's easier to just continue believing what you believe and dismiss any challenge to those beliefs as wrong than it is to individually evaluate them each and every time. This isn't a conservative thing. This is a human thing.
If someone came up to me and said "wow, actually the Nazis were the good guys". I would immediately just dismiss that idea. I'm not interested in hearing their arguments or engaging with the idea intellectually, even if they had fundemental arguments to back it up.
If I had unlimited time and energy, maybe I would, but I have other things to worry about, and I'm very confident in my belief that the Nazis were in fact bad.
We have these cognitive shortcuts we use so that we don't need to spend mental energy thinking about these things all the time. Changing those shortcuts is only possible if someone is willing to put in the labor to do so. Most adults aren't, and the longer you've lived, the more shortcuts you've made, so changing your mind requires a whole lot more effort.
It's also the reason why a lot of people believe what they believe because it's what they were taught as kids. Kids don't really need things to make much sense, because they don't have a lot of these shortcuts and preconceptions already built. Once it becomes a belief though and mental connections start being constructed and that belief gets internalized on a deep level. It becomes a lot of labor to change it.
I think part of this is again a lack of humility. You actually don't need to do that labor, at least not in the moment. Someone comfortable with their shortcomings can realize they are unsure about a belief and newly ignorant of many downstream ideas. Like if someone were to convince me extra-terrestrial intelligent life is on Earth there are many many things affected by that knowledge. But I do not need to figure any of that out in order to adopt that one new belief. Everything else can be deferred until needed.
You will need to figure it out at some point soon though. It's kind of like if someone were to ask me why I don't start remodeling my house.
Like I know that picking out the plans and starting the demo isn't hard, but it implies things that are hard later. Theres a lot of labor involved, which is why I don't do it.
Same goes for people's beliefs. They may not have to take on the mental load now, but they will have to take it on.
In your example, if you were convinced that there was extraterrestrial life on earth, you'd have to reevaluate most major events and think "wait... did the aliens have a hand in this?". Your whole understanding of the world would change and have to be rebuilt based on this new belief. If you didn't have rock solid evidence of it staring you in the face, this might cause you to subconsciously reject that belief just in the face of that sheer effort.
The problem is, if you are habitually right about everything all the time then on the rare occasion when people do catch you being wrong about something they will really rub it in and gloat about it.
You can avoid this by strategically picking small, inconsequential things to be wrong about now and then to let them have some small victories that don’t undermine your general credibility. It’s like letting a kid beat you at basketball so they don’t get discouraged.
Follow me for more tips on having no friends.
Either the people around you are the worst, or you need to be hardened to a little gloating more than they need to be desensitized to your fallibility.
Yeah. It's a lot of work and I'm not a professional in oration, mental health, nor psychology. If showing them the clips of pretti being executed doesn't convince them that something is deeply wrong, it's beyond my purview to convince them.
It's never easy, bit sometimes you need to let go and keep your path. They may never say it out loud (let alone offer an apology), but the winds of history will prove them wrong. And I already see small signs of it on the local level. People aren't flying around Blue Lives Matter flags with trump stickers anymore compared to 2024. Family talks about politics got very quiet all of a sudden.
I know "vibes" is such a tenuous thing to judge society on, but people are better than we take credit for in terms of feeling vibes on the micro societal level.
It sounds like your family members don't want to be convinced. They're emotionally attached to their position, and you've already lost them. They're not waiting for a sound logical argument, or hard data to show them the truth. They're in their happy bubble of ignorance.
They aren't MAGA and do agree that Trump is often an idiot, so I don't think they are so far gone that they couldn't eventually come around on at least some points.
One frustrating thing is that I keep bringing up sone things and they do say "Yeah I agree trump shouldn't have done that", but then they don't agree with my overall point.
Fair enough. I was hasty and let slip my frustration at the dichotomy of reality that we share with our fellows. I often lament that I have no idea what to do about the situation we're in. If we can't all agree on reality, how do we begin to move forward? Your question is just a more nuanced and specific version of that.
I'll give you the only thing that has slightly worked for me: Authority. You'll have to find people that your family view as an authority on the subject who are telling reality as it is. That might have a chance to break through to them.
One good site I found and shared was https://tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/ which shows 73.6% haven't been convicted of a crime, but they just said oh they haven't been convicted yet, but they are likely criminals.
I think that reaction means you’re unfortunately fighting a losing battle, in all the ways people have very thoughtfully discussed here already, but I did just see another factual source that made me think of this thread in case it’s helpful to you or anyone else: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/courts-have-ruled-4400-times-that-ice-jailed-people-illegally-it-hasnt-stopped-2026-02-14/
Key facts:
[Edit] And a preemptive refutation for anyone you might show this to if they suggest that the remaining 48,000 detentions must be justified (or, at the very least, lawful) because they haven’t filed lawsuits:
(That person did eventually manage to file a case, after nearly year of detention, when their lawyer agreed to take it on for free. The point remains: finding thousands of dollars or convincing a lawyer to donate their very limited time isn't something that will happen overnight for the majority of victims)
Thank you for all this data! We did end up agreeing on some things, and one of the things we discussed was that they were frustrated about news articles on the left/right contradicting each other with headlines.
I pushed them more to see if the sources they were looking at had any data to back up their claims, and shared with them https://tracreports.org/about/ on the site I originally used to show that they get their information from the Government through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but that it is difficult and they have a team of lawyers to ensure they get access to it.I'll likely share them this article in the near future, I only had a couple hours with them after making this post.
Something like 21% have pending charges...even if that doesn't include people who have already been convicted, that's still less than 50%.
I agree with the general consensus that you'll probably struggle to change the minds of people like this, but here's a relevant perspective I encountered on Bluesky recently:
https://bsky.app/profile/youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com/post/3mez7lh3xtk24
Or, as described by another user:
https://bsky.app/profile/oldenoughtosay.com/post/3mez7p5tfuk2j
I don't know Exellin's situation, but if it's in a family setting, it may not just be the people arguing who benefit from the argument. They may get through to more receptive members of the family, or encourage less vocal people who feel the same way.
Provoking an agent is not something that should earn you a bullet in your back.
I do think we should acknowledge that provoking agents to violence is an important tactic of nonviolent protest and it has been quite effective in changing public opinion. Which isn't to say that anyone expected to be shot, nor should they be.
The Tangle is specifically written and designed to cover these sorts of issues for non-news junkies without getting anyone’s partisan hackles up. You could maybe start there as a source to send them and hope they won’t dig in their heels.
I would highly recommend this piece. It thoroughly dispels the notion that they're only targeting "immigrants that are criminals or that didn't immigrate legally", and in fact makes the opposite point: ICE is illegally detaining and deporting immigrants that are here legally.
Have you asked them what would change their minds? I find it a useful question to ask. Some people say they won’t (take them at their word), and some people will be open to considering. In these cases they often make up requirements on the spot and this can be negotiated. You can sometimes show them current evidence is enough. Other times you give them the ability to save face by not being wrong and changing their mind when a minor new piece of evidence comes up.
Starting from this point has been helpful for me on many topics, while trying to use a “non violent communication” approach as well.
I think this is a great suggestion, it also forces them to introspect (or at least pushes them in that direction) to think about "am I just digging my heels in, or do I have good reason for my position"? Tbh I think this would probably be good advice for anyone to self-reflect on when you're feeling that you're in a conflict of some sort.
If you're actually trying to convince these people that what Trump is doing is bad, you need to acknowledge where they're right, too. Not right about Trump, but right about facts. Trying to refute what they can easily demonstrate will blow up in your face.
Crime is down significantly in America; the murder rate in 2025 was the lowest it has been since 1900.
Drug smuggling is down (along with overdose deaths) significantly since 2023 (and is also really complicated. I shared this specific link for a reason, but I wouldn't recommend making those arguments unless you know what you're doing.)
I'm not exactly sure what the context of "ICE always deported criminals, but the left is focusing on it now to be anti-trump" is, but the factual claim that ICE had always deported criminals is generally true.
"The death's in Minnesota were because they provoked the ICE agents." Both victims were part of resistance groups who were identifying ICE vehicles and then following them in vehicles while honking in order to chase them out of neighborhoods. THEY DID NOT DESERVE TO GET SHOT, but your argument will be infinitely more convincing if you acknowledge that both were provoking ICE agents. (WHICH DOES NOT EXCUSE THEIR DEATHS. If they were doing something illegal they should have been arrested, not shot.)
And finally...
My point is this: getting in an argument over whether crime is actually down or not will completely sabotage any chance you have of convincing these people. (Particularly since factually it is down). If they have said something like "yeah I agree trump shouldn't do that", per one of your comments, then your approach should be something like "yes, but none of this justifies the reign of terror; there was a better way to do this."
You make great points! Thank you.
We did end up having a good discussion about this and came to a few concessions in the limited time I had with them.
I find when I send links to people they don’t read them or they call them fake.
The argument that got them to shut up at least a couple days ago was that ICE is using lethal force to enforce immigration, do you think illegal immigrants and everyone around them deserve to die? Do you agree that the government has the right to use its power like this? ICE is creating a situation in which US citizens are getting shot and killed in the street.
That at least ended the argument. Don’t think it changed any minds but maybe if I repeat it enough. It helped that I was talking to a libertarian who believes the government should have no power.
This is a good approach. Instead of presenting facts, ask questions that make them actually think about their own moral lines.
"Is lethal force justified when enforcing immigration or responding to protesters?"
"Is it justified to take young children from schools and buses?"
"Is enforcing immigration important enough to override follpwing the due processes that police are obligated to follow?"
Anyone else got questions that can get people thinking?
Tread lightly, because we came dangerously close to “they deserve it because they’re immigrants” and most people who confront that feeling end up doubling down on it because they can go online and find communities who don’t shame them for feeling that way.
The only person I've ever heard make that kind of comment seemed normal on the surface but the minute politics or the government got discussed you'd quickly realize he's a kind of insane.
Yeah I don’t think the person I was talking to was really aware that was the direction they were going, they’re the sort that really believes that ICE is only rounding up criminals
The person I heard make that comment probably wouldn't have cared.
There was a discussion about another co-worker (an immigrant, not sure what his current immigration status is) who people had seen come up in the court docket for intimidating a court official or something weird like that. This guy asked why we weren't just deporting him. I said "because we don't even know if he's guilty or not for starters" to which he responded "so what?". I more or less left the room after that.
For additional context I'm in Canada so... ya. This almost a year ago and he was also a guy who thought Elon Musk was the most qualified person to run DOGE. I could say more but my point is the guy was in lala land, only cared about himself, and was incapable of having his mind changed.
Yeah your guy sounds like someone who's already gone down that rabbit hole, confronted the idea that he thinks they deserve it because they're immigrants, and has, via the internet or otherwise, decided that he's okay with this.
Most people who confront this idea turn out like your friend, which is what my warning was for. The person I was talking to hadn't confronted this yet, he still really thinks that ICE is only going after criminals, he hasn't even made that leap that 'ice thinks all immigrants are criminals'
I can't help with the numbers but maybe someone else here can:
Tell them how many illegal immigrants Obama deported. That shows it can be done efficiently without the violence and societal discord that according to Trump is necessary to get the job done.
Which society would they prefer: the current shit show or the stability that you guys had before, if and when the deportation process is equally effective in both scenarios? (Like I said, I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's was in fact more effective at getting results.)
ETA: I recommend this approach because it doesn't lead to arguing whether individual cases of violence happened or not, or were justified or not. It simply takes for granted that society is more hostile and violent now, which it is, and your family members absolutely feel it in their bones too. Just don't bring up discussion points that give them a chance to try to find logical arguments against that fact, because that's what people will do when in an uncomfortable situation. The arguments are first and foremost intended to soothe their own minds and they will continue for as long as they are afraid, needing to be soothed (that is, forever, or until society calms down again and they don't have to be afraid anymore).
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
This sounds like they are emotionally attached to their view and are not likely to be reasoned into believing differently.
I think @DeepThought is right here. They do not want to be convince especially since your first point means that they have most likely seen the videos and chosen not to believe them. If they haven't seen the videos then I guess show them. It's brutal but people have to see the real world they live in.
On another note if you start having these conversations with your family you can ask them to define their point better. For this to work you need to do major research on some of these topics but again we are in a time when these are the actual things that matter. So ask them how could people immigrate legally? Ask them to explain the immigration process. Immigration is a bit more complex so probably have that one on the back burner. Id start with drugs. If they claim there are less drugs flowing in then ask them to define drugs. Point out that big pharma operates on the same principle as drug cartels. At the end of the day this is about the definition of crime.
This is more an exercise for you to get better at understanding people and their talking points and get better at explaining complex issues in a simpler way. I don't believe your family will be convinced by any of this but it might help them start questioning certain beliefs they have about the world we live in. This is how I have approached the situation in my life which at the very least has helped my get better at talking to people about issues. I know this is probably not the most helpful post but maybe it helps you look at the issue from a different perspective. goodluck
No disrespect intended, but I think this will backfire spectacularly.
Edit to explain why: put yourself on the other side of this argument. In a discussion about illegal immigration and border smuggling, you clearly don't mean abuse of legal pharmaceuticals or something like the oxycodone scandal, right? So in that world, you'll take your opponent asking you to think about how legal pharma compares to cartels as a tacit acknowledgement that you were right the whole time and they have no real data to refute you with. Worse, you're now convinced that your opponent has no intention of letting their mind be changed, since they're suddenly changing the terms of the entire discussion on you.
I see your point. In saying that I have put myself in the other side and have indeed had these exact or versions of these conversations with people who are more "progressive". Generally I can tell if people are willing to change their opinions and in this case like I said I don't think OPs family will change their minds.
Most of my points should be taken as isolated topics. So if the conversation is about illegal migration then don't pivot straight to the drugs topic. Discuss illegal migration and how that is made worse by policy and if it can be solved. Naturally people will have no idea what they are talking about and they will throw up strawman arguments to detract from that point so if the conversation ends up at drugs then you can raise the point about the big pharma industry.
This isn't a perfect method as you need to know all the talking points and have a decent level of knowledge on them. I'm definitely not able to explain this properly online but this is the best i could do.
Other folks are probably right that facts won't work, but in the spirit of answering your request, I posted this a few weeks back
https://tildes.net/~society/1s78/before_and_after_the_trigger_press_that_killed_renee_good
It's an incredibly thorough look at the legal background of the shooting of Renee Good and all of the expected police procedure that the officers involved ignored.
I remember reading this a few weeks ago but forgot about it! Thank you.
We did make some concessions as I only had like 2 hours with them after making this post here, and I'm currently debating whether to continue the conversation online with sending them links like this or to leave it. I'm leaning towards continuing the conversation and this will be a good article to discuss.