[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith.

My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

[scoopdewoop]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of?

I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality.

I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her

[zaphar]

There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.

[scoopdewoop]

What are you talking about? Literally, what?

Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later.

What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty?

Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass?

I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights"

If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg

[zaphar]

I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them.

Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules.

This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules.

If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.

[mindslight]

Man, you people will really turn off your basic empathy and reasoning on the flimsiest of excuses. That could just as easily be your family getting attacked at 3AM. And if you dare to exercise your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourselves against a night time home invasion, perhaps even being summarily executed. I assume until this actually happens to you or at least someone in your community, you will just keep on inventing reasons why it couldn't possibly. It's easier than confronting the truth, for sure.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Friend. The truth is some people should not be in US. And now, after years of kicking a can down the road, we are in a painful process of rectifying this oversight. It is being confronted. I think your concern is that is not being confronted in the manner you find desirable.

That is fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind 'I am suddenly concerned about people breaking into my house at 3am'.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago?

Friend. You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears. In the meantime, detained is not arrested. Based on your overall posture, I must assume that you know this. Hell, cop can detain you during a traffic stop if they so choose. How is it any different for a building full of people?

You are upset, but it is not entirely clear to me why. In a sense, those inalienable rights were preserved if the above is understood, which means you are upset over something else.

Can you focus on what that something else is? I am not egging you on. I am trying to understand your world model.

edit:

Separately, I spent some quality time with the article you cited and, I wonder if you would like to have an opportunity to reconsider your stance:

"Four U.S. citizen children were taken from their parents during the raid because the parents lacked legal status, DHS said, alleging that one of the parents was a Tren de Aragua member."

Sadly, this is the reality made by the permissive policies US has had. Does it suck? Yeah, but those kids wouldn't have been citizens if those people did not enter US illegally. Everything here stems from multiple cascading bad decisions. We are at a point, where public sympathy for this is.. low.

[tptacek]

These were not simple detentions; this was ICE taking every door in a 5 story apartment complex at 3:00AM, and detaining every single resident for over 4 hours. Nothing at all like the types of detention Justice Kavanaugh refers to when he talks about the minor inconvenience of a police stop-and-investigate detention. It is not the case that your local police can do this in response to a traffic infraction.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.

[nevertrustcops]

Public sympathy for immigrants is in fact at an all time high, as it turns out that most Americans are turned off by secret police squads kicking in doors and abducting people in the middle of the night.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

That is an interesting claim. I have no proper anecdata, data or, well, anything to properly gauge that sentiment ( ideally by state ). If you do, I would be very, very interested in something that would give it to me.

[ehaliewicz2]

Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live?

Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.

[worik]

> My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

There you are blaming the victims.

That is not cool

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?

[worik]

Blame the perpetrators.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady.

- If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )?

- If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )?

- If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?

[foobarian]

Bet you wouldn't be this high and mighty had ICE invaded your town and pulled every resident including your family out of their bed at 3am at gunpoint because "they had credible evidence there was an illegal in one of the houses"

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Eh, um, I would personally invite you to the discussion at gp level, where I dismiss this line of argumentation outright. It doesn't do much for me. Honestly, it does not advance your argument either. What I would or would not do is rather irrelevant in a grand scheme of things. However, in aggregate, it would be rather problematic. And it does not appear to be happening at that scale.

Do you know why?

[worik]

> who, do you believe, the perpetrators are

Masked, no ID, claim they are from ICE. Thugs.

> the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )?

Assault an kidnapping.

> who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?

Interesting question: Probably capitalists who want cheap labour and are willing to cut corners to get it

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Friend. I would advise you against taking posts you read online as some sort of legally binding advice. It.. is just not a good idea. I will make it simple for you. Either ICE is a federal level entity with some rights and immunities assigned to it or not.

If they are and they do, then kidnapping seems like, at best, a mischaracterization. I don't want to belabor the point, but it sounds like you a have an axe to grind.

<< Probably capitalists who want cheap labour and are willing to cut corners to get it

Interesting indeed. Not your answer, but rather the logical inconsistency it implies. How would removal of illegal aliens result in cheap labor? I suspect you did not think your answer through. May I suggest less reflexive writing?

[mindslight]

In another comment, you said "You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears". I don't know if that was just a ploy to appear reasonable, but if you really care about that as you purport to then you already know the answers to those questions.

As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Friend, whether I know or not is not relevant to this discussion. If you were following my conversation with parent then you know the questions were for his benefit, not mine.

<< As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.

That is fair. What would you propose to do about this?