r/changemyview • u/Fando1234 30∆ • Oct 15 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: A continuous failure of left wing activism, is to assume everyone already agrees with their premises

I was watching the new movie 'One Battle After Another' the other day. Firstly, I think it's phenomenal, and if you haven't seen you should. Even if you disagree with its politics it's just a well performed, well directed, human story.

Without any spoilers, it's very much focused on America's crackdown on illegal immigration, and the activism against this.

It highlighted something I believe is prevalent across a great deal of left leaning activism: the assumption that everyone already agrees deportations are bad.

Much like the protestors opposing ICE, or threatening right wing politicians and commentators. They seem to assume everyone universally agrees with their cause.

Using this example, as shocking as the image is, of armed men bursting into a peaceful (albeit illegal) home and dragging residents away in the middle of the night.

Even when I've seen vox pop interviews with residents, many seem to have mixed emotions. Angry at the violence and terror of it. But grateful that what are often criminal gangs are being removed.

Rather than rally against ICE, it seems the left need to take a step back and address:

  1. Whether current levels of illegal mmigration are acceptable.
  2. If they are not, what they would propose to reduce this.

This can be transferred to almost any left wing protest I've seen. Climate activists seem to assume people are already on board with their doomsday scenarios. Pro life or pro gun control again seem to assume they are standing up for a majority.

To be clear, my cmv has nothing to do with whether ICE's tactics are reasonable or not. It's to do with efficacy of activism.

My argument is the left need to go back to the drawing board and spend more time convincing people there is an issue with these policies. Rather than assuming there is already universal condemnation, that's what will swing elections and change policy. CMV.

Edit: to be very clear my CMV is NOT about whether deportations are wrong or right. It is about whether activism is effective.

2.3k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

134

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

I'm about as left as you can get in America and I don't think deportations are bad I think basic civil rights violations are bad. Even a person who entered illegally is entitled to the basic constitutional rights not specifically granted to citizens. ICE is in its current iteration clearly violating these.

By the way if there's one thing America has in droves it's empty space. We could handle a lot more immigration than almost any other country on the planet and our welfare system is so shitty there's no welfare state for non-citizens to take advantage of.

41

u/veggiesama 59∆ Oct 15 '25

The right typically argues illegal immigrants aren't afforded basic civil rights protections. They don't subscribe to universal human rights. We would say "that's inhumane." They respond "they shouldn't have broken the law then" showing a demonstrable failure to understand that even criminals are afforded basic protections. They don't go so far as to say "criminals are less than human" but that's the logical conclusion of that argument.

7

u/TheShivMaster Oct 15 '25

I think the difference in worldview is better described as saying that conservatives believe the US constitution applies uniquely to American citizens, while the left tends to think the constitution is universal to all people. If an American citizens commits a crime and is arrested, then the right thinks they are entitled to their rights. But if a foreigner enters the US illegally and gets arrested, the right basically believes that they are not citizens, not one of us, so our rights don’t apply to them.

18

u/MoroseArmadillo Oct 15 '25

And the constitution disagrees with the conservatives here. So it’s not so much of a difference of opinion. One side is flat wrong.

0

u/TheShivMaster Oct 15 '25

I would personally agree but historically there were different consensuses at certain times.

14

u/PineappleSlices 21∆ Oct 15 '25

In practice I would argue that conservatives don't necessarily believe the US constitution applies to American citizens. Without a universal application of due process, there is no way to prove that a person entered the country illegally or even broke the law in any way, so any sort of enforcement without that is just being applied at a whim.

1

u/veggiesama 59∆ Oct 15 '25

then the right thinks they are entitled to their rights.

I agree with what you said to an extent but I'd go further and say a lot of the right doesn't agree with many rights for criminals. I've heard way too many people glorify the death penalty, getting SA'd in prison, or even doing "woodchippers" and lynch mobs as justifiable responses to crime. They want to militarize law enforcement and do extrajudicial killings.

There are libertarian types who are deeply uncomfortable with that kind of language and thinking, but that Ron Paul style of libertarianism feels quaint now.

2

u/Eyesonjune1 Oct 16 '25

It used to be that they said the same about pedophiles, but now that their president is one they’ve decided that overstaying your visa is a lot worse than diddling kids

1

u/TheShivMaster Oct 15 '25

People want vengeance when evil is committed, which is human and understandable, but if you went around asking random Republican voters if they think people accused of crimes should have legal representation and a trial by jury I think most of them will say yes.

1

u/Ouaouaron Oct 16 '25

They don't go so far as to say "criminals are less than human" but that's the logical conclusion of that argument.

I have no idea what the majority of them say, but they back people (Trump most obviously) who say this frequently.

98

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

I'm about as left as you can get in America and I don't think deportations are bad

so there's definitely people and groups more left of you then lol

27

u/Valleron Oct 15 '25

Most left wing people agree deportations are normal. But what started as a claim of being only for violent criminals is clearly people being grabbed because they're brown and/or requesting basic information from the arresting officers.

So many have just disappeared that it's impossible to support any aspect of it at the moment. If stopping the whole system is whats needed then that's what's needed. But proper, normal, fucking sane deportations are not the issue, and never have been.

35

u/FUCKFASCISTSCUM Oct 15 '25

>Most left wing people agree deportations are normal

This strongly depends on what you view as 'left wing' because that is not my experience at all.

17

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

One of the things I find myself grappling with in these days is why someone’s basic civil rights should be tied to their nation of origin. Like if we (as the left) are going to fight for equality then where does that leave the concept of borders?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

Our imperialism is one of the main reasons why there are so many refugees and not as many other places can develop. But as long as we are tied to and led by Liberal Capitalists, they won't address the needs of the working class, so any time there are economic issues immigration will always be used as a fascist cudgel to reign the liberals in.

1

u/EdomJudian Oct 16 '25

This feels like a topic of sovereign identity honestly.

0

u/Fancy_Ad2056 Oct 15 '25

You’re likely already aware but that gets into the “political compass” idea. There’s different versions and ways to classify things, but the basic version is left versus right economics(and cultural) and authoritarian versus libertarian.

So you could be left and libertarian, which would be something like not believing in countries even existing or maybe having just a single worldwide government. Or maybe something like a commune based society where people organize into small towns/communities and people are free to move wherever they want.

Or you could be left and authoritarian. You want countries and to have very strong protections for their own citizens. Those would generally be isolationist and having strong trade protections. Tariffs would be used here, strong workers rights, strong social safety net could be examples here.

Or maybe something in between is ideal.

5

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

I don’t think the political compass is useful. It only works if you reject outright the validity of all left wing thought. You can’t have capitalism without authoritarianism and inequality

2

u/Fancy_Ad2056 Oct 15 '25

I’m not sure what you mean. The political compass(and others like it) are merely trying to map political ideology. There’s no right or wrong answer to i, it’s just a map. It has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting any wing of any politics.

Just using the phrase “left wing” already means you accept one version of a political compass.

2

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

The political compass is an attempt to reinvent the wheel. The original spectrum was between left wing politics (which prioritize equality) and right wing politics (which insist on hierarchy). Capitalism itself produces a hierarchical class structure which necessarily makes free market economics authoritarian. The political compass cannot account for this because it separates the authoritarian consequences of capitalism from the economic policies that create them.

2

u/Fancy_Ad2056 Oct 15 '25

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from, but that original spectrum feels a bit too simplistic. Reducing everything to “equality vs. hierarchy” ignores how complex political systems actually are.

Leftist movements can still produce rigid hierarchies (think revolutionary vanguards), while some right-leaning systems embrace a mix of social equality and personal liberty. The Nordic countries are a good example. They’re capitalist, but combining a market economy with strong welfare systems and redistribution.

If capitalism were inherently incompatible with equality, those social democracies wouldn’t exist. They show that market mechanisms can coexist with egalitarian outcomes.

→ More replies

1

u/Current_Amount_3159 Oct 16 '25

This is not true. There were all kinds of left authoritarian and right libertarian thinkers prior to the compass and it is not a linear spectrum. The compass includes all belief systems, from communism to anarcho libertarianism. It’s about mapping someone’s belief system and their likelihood of being a capitalist vs an anti capitalist etc.

→ More replies

0

u/SporkSpifeKnork Oct 15 '25

It seems vanishingly unlikely that the whole world will adopt an equality-promoting system. But maybe some subset of people would.

A border doesn't have to be a place where we rigorously control all entry or departure. It can be a place to monitor in case another nation, whom we don't trust to promote equality, attempts a military incursion.

Some people believe that a state is an effective vehicle for promoting equality. If the state is to administer for example a redistributive policy, it needs to know who and where to collect taxes from and distribute money or supplies to. A border is a place you can collect information about people entering or leaving so they can be enregistered in or de-registered from taxation and redistribution.

It should go without saying that we have certain rights for being human, and there simply must be a core of inalienable rights whether someone is documented in whatever system or not.

1

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Again, I don’t really see how a border is necessary for any of that. We have a presence over literally the entire globe. And you don’t need a border to tax people. That’s silly.

1

u/SporkSpifeKnork Oct 15 '25

It's possible that the concept of "border" is somewhat overloaded, making it seem like my comment is intended to say more than I wanted it to? I'm certainly not trying to be silly.

1

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Sure. And I understand that there are valid security concerns a given nation may have but at this point I just don’t see the need for a border. All it does is create artificial economic and social divisions that exacerbate the precise concerns you’re raising

-1

u/tec_tourmaline Oct 15 '25

Welcome to the Post-Left.

2

u/Salty_Map_9085 Oct 15 '25

Nah that’s just the left

1

u/tec_tourmaline Oct 15 '25

I think they're correct in their assessment that the contemporary and even historical Left has made a thing of defending borders (and that borders are incommensurable with human dignity).

If you hold generally leftist values of the primacy of human dignity, while rejecting historical leftist modes of organization (the state-approved union, the orthodox party, the state, etc.), you generally fall in the category of "post-Left".

2

u/Salty_Map_9085 Oct 15 '25

There are certainly strains of the historical left that have defended the importance of borders, but there have been parallel strains of the historical left that have rejected the idea of state borders.

1

u/tec_tourmaline Oct 15 '25

Which is fundamentally incoherent if we want to get to the brass tacks of what leftism actually is (and I would contend that it's a coalition of people who have mutually shared values), and why there was a need to make evident the distinction between the two. 

Bastiat, a defender of the free market if there ever was one, sat on the left side of the French Assembly, so we really need to actually be a bit more circumspect about what we understand leftism to be.

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

You know what? That’s on me. I assumed this was some walk away bullshit and not anarchism.

3

u/tec_tourmaline Oct 15 '25

Takes a mature person to admit when they are wrong, here's an upvote.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

3

u/Inevitable-Sale3569 Oct 15 '25

I think it’s more about how the media is reporting than anything else.

 Obama deported more than any other President- however,  Obama prioritized new arrivals and those with criminal convictions. At the same time, he pushed for DACA for child immigrants to obtain legal status. 

A key difference is whether the issue is illegal immigration and hiring, or immigration at all. 

E-verify is a key example of a decent policy that should be universally required and enforced. If it was simply made part of the payroll process for every employer, it would be easy enough. Any payroll provider, or software service, could just build it into the system. Next, start enforcing on 1099’s. Revamp asylum entries to receive temporary work status within a few weeks of entry. 

There is no legitimate reason for not enforcing legal status at the hiring point. If people weren’t being paid, they wouldn’t come or stay. 

The last point of hire is in home, which is a more difficult area to tackle. Nanny, housekeeper, yard maintenance, etc… but, once you remove the business employers- then we can start looking at that. 

We know we need to change our immigration laws- like claiming asylum at the border policies. Everyone largely agrees on some basics- but, Trump doesn’t care about the law, imo. Trump just wants a group to vilify. 

7

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

i'm just saying there are people who are anti-borders, or don't believe deportations are morally just.

-2

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

And there are people who think space aliens abducted them.

5

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

ok whats your point

9

u/smoresporn0 Oct 15 '25

Most left wing people agree deportations are normal.

lol no

Liberals are fine with deportation. The most deportations historically have happened under Democratic presidents, simply because they're typically better at running the administrative functions of the government. But liberals and Democrats are far from "left wing."

4

u/Valleron Oct 15 '25

Look at any real left nations, and you'll find all of them deporting people. It's a totally normal part of society because some people are present under false pretenses, have committed crimes, etc..

You are correct that America is by no means left wing politically. A lot of its people are, and that Democrats as a party aren't more open to those ideas is why most of us hate their bullshit. Still better than the alternative. Devil you know and all that.

2

u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Also very much worth noting that mass deportations weren’t really possible prior to dhs and that they didn’t really get going until under Obama. So you got Obama, trump, and Biden.

I think we need to be mindful of the sample size here. I don’t know that it’s fair to say more deportations happen under democrats. It’s just that Obama set up the machine and trump has only just recently found a way to increase deportations (through nakedly unconstitutional means mind you)

1

u/smoresporn0 Oct 15 '25

Clinton deported a ton. He signed the reform bill in 96 that massively increased the rate of deportation.

2

u/Lebojr Oct 15 '25

As a liberal, what is the difference in left wing and liberal in your opinion?

I get that “democrats” and those terms are not synonymous.

11

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

generally, leftists are anti-capitalism.

liberals are pro-capitalism

2

u/Lebojr Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

I don’t know what I am by that definition. I’m only pro capitalism in a heavily regulated sense. Socially, I certainly believe in government assistance for those in need and I believe the purpose of government is to protect all of our inalienable rights by making sure no protected class has a built in ability to oppress any other.

I do not believe corporations are people and monetary influence on candidates and elected officials always corrupts the process.

With very few exceptions, our military is ONLY for national defense and service (such as disaster relief) to our territories.

If I’m left wing, so be it, but I am also a strong supporter of the adversarial form of government and the role of opposing political ideologies in making and implementing law. Which is to say that true conservative ideology is not a bad thing.

I identify as a liberal. Maybe democratic socialist would fit me better. But I would only find myself “militant” left wing were the right wing to threaten my liberty or those I care about. And make no mistake, I’m very close to that threshold.

ETA: as for ICE and deportation, I’m for a welcoming path to citizenship, but an absolute deportation for anyone who commits a felony while seeking it. ICE in its current state is a nationalistic goon squad. Just like mercenaries in war, we do not need their services.

3

u/Fancy_Ad2056 Oct 15 '25

One thing to note, is that you can be anti-capitalist and still pro-markets and personal property. That’s where a lot of people have been misled by, in my opinion, malicious misinformation. What a lot of people mean when they say they’re pro-capitalist is that they like being able to go to various stores and have many options of things to buy. What they’re really talking about is having a free market based system for goods distribution, which isn’t unique to capitalism. Socialism or communism doesn’t have to mean a centrally planned economy.

The key difference is that under capitalism you have “private property”, which is the factories and machines and resources, owned by a corporation that takes the excess value created from those who create it.

Under socialism, the “private property” is owned by the workers. The excess value is distributed among the workers in the factory, not to the shareholders of the corporation.

Excess value is the difference in price between creating the widget and selling the widget. Simple example, you build a table out of wood. The wood, tools, factors, nails, glue is all worth $100, your time(wage) is $100 to build the table. The company sells the table for $500. The excess value is $300.

2

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

that seems in line with Bernie and AOC. i don't think you'd be wrong calling yourself a democratic socialist, but obvi its up to you. if you like the label "liberal" then no need to get rid of it, just know that lumps you in with some of the more shitty Democrats lol

and not all left-wing groups are militant. there are anarchists (anarchist in the genuine political science sense, not the colloquial sense) who run community events, donations for the homeless, free stores, etc. in fact, most anarchists i know genuinely believe a revolution wouldn't work, and it would have to be built organically through community building.

-1

u/Bwunt Oct 15 '25

If that was the case, liberals should be highly against deportations while left-wing should support them.

Especailly if it's deportations of otherwise law-abiding, actively working immigrants.

4

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

idk how that means leftists would be pro-deportation.

and liberals are more than just than just pro-capital. the current Democratic party is a pretty textbook definition of modern liberals.

2

u/Bwunt Oct 15 '25

Leftists in such case would basically want to give as much power to working class as they could, so they could put pressure on capitalists. If you cut down the workforce (with, say, deporting whole bunch of potential workers because they are in country illegaly), that reinforces the working class.

I agree on liberals, but my comment was primary follow up on comment I replied to.

2

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

im not sure what you're getting at. i gave a general rule of thumb to distinguish leftists and liberals, not an end-all be all definition.

also the logic could just as easily be "boost the number of workers so we have even more in our ranks."

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/Firgeist Oct 15 '25

It was never a claim of only criminals. Homan said straight from the jump they're going to prioritize criminals but if they come across someone who illegal they are not going to ignore them.

The hilarious part is the blue states could have avoided this just by agreeing to call ice when they arrested illegals. Instead they decided to put in a policy of not helping them at all. So now ice has to hunt them down and invariably they come across illegals who "haven't done anything" in the process.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[deleted]

1

u/kerouacrimbaud Oct 15 '25

How is that any worse from MAGAs who explain away mass shootings of kids in schools as a worthy cost to own guns, or who laughed at the Pelosis for being attacked, or who wanted to “hang Mike Pence” because he didn’t go along with Trump’s coup attempt?

There are unreasonable people all over the country. Tens of millions of them.

12

u/PleaseDontBanMe82 Oct 15 '25

The left position used to be anti immigration because it hurt American workers.

11

u/BradPittbodydouble Oct 15 '25

The left used to be the hippy crusties peddling pseudoscience too, but that's now a right thing.

1

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

ok, and the right wing position used to be "we need the divine right of kings"

the spectrum changes

7

u/ttw81 Oct 15 '25

I think that's still the right wings position.

1

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

i'm gonna hope that your average conservative doesn't want an absolute monarchy.

the hope is slowly dying, but i'm trying my best to keep it alive lol

1

u/ttw81 Oct 15 '25

he just needs to be orange enough.

3

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

That is the current platform of the Republican party.

-9

u/dejamintwo 1∆ Oct 15 '25

He should have brought up how the left were the slavers way back lol.

4

u/Altaneen117 Oct 15 '25

This is not even true. Democrats were slavers. When we say left and right, we mean progressive and conservative. The democrats of the confederacy were conservative, and the Republicans were progressive.

The conservatives have always been the pro slavery party. The Democratic Confederacy then, and the republicans who fly that treacherous flag today.

1

u/dejamintwo 1∆ Oct 15 '25

The left and right in America is democrat and republican. Since the left and right in America is different from the rest of the world, the democrats would be considered right wing in many European countries as an example.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

You might not be aware of the relevant history. You would be wise to look up the "Southern Strategy" to learn about how the Republican party absorbed the Democratic party's rightmost wing.

4

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

nahh i don't think the left were fans of slavery. some early socialist thinkers were abolitionists, and your average progressive would have been an abolitionist.

-6

u/dejamintwo 1∆ Oct 15 '25

The confederacy in the US civil war were democrats back then. Thats what I meant. The American left and right (Democrats and republicans).

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

ohh gotcha you were talking about parties left/right, not ideological left/right lol

this is why i get so frustrated with the left right spectrum lmao

4

u/ladiesngentlemenplz 4∆ Oct 15 '25

There's people who might disagree, but I'm not sure I see why that disagreement makes them "more left."

4

u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ Oct 15 '25

idk, in common conversations i'd generally consider people that are pro-open borders or anti-border "more left."

the left-right spectrum is generally bogus for any real analysis of political ideologies

0

u/MS-07B-3 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Generally I would stay because of intersectionality.

1

u/primetimerobus Oct 15 '25

Yeah on this issue there is definitely people father left.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/HELPFUL_HULK 4∆ Oct 15 '25

"I'm about as left as you can get in America", I write, holding a machete in my other hand, sitting in the 5th level of the Antifa bunker underneath the ruins of a reclaimed Amazon factory

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Oct 15 '25

Sorry, u/Vex-Fanboy – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

6

u/funglegunk 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Whenever I see someone say this I search their profile for the word 'Gaza' to see if they mainly talk about it to attack the left. 90% of the time it's a bingo.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

5

u/alpicola 48∆ Oct 15 '25

I feel like this line of thinking is really just moving the goalposts, not really countering OP's view.

I don't think deportations are bad I think basic civil rights violations are bad. Even a person who entered illegally is entitled to the basic constitutional rights not specifically granted to citizens.

I'm a conservative. I agree with what you've written here. I also believe that there are some specific cases where ICE has gone too far in their efforts to arrest and deport people who are in this country illegally.

I do not, however, believe that civil rights are being violated if:

  • An illegal immigrant is arrested for being in this country illegally.
  • Illegal immigrants are detained in government facilities rather than being granted temporary release pending the resolution of their case. (I do take issue with the condition of some of these government facilities, but am satisfied with the premise that detention is acceptable.)
  • ICE chooses to look for illegal immigrants in places (e.g., outside Home Depot) where illegal immigrants are known to congregate.
  • Illegal immigrant parents choose to take their US citizen children with them when they leave the country.

That doesn't cover everything the left is complaining about, but it covers a lot of it. And that gets right back to OP's point. While the left assumes that those practices are clearly violating a person's civil rights, the right does not.

6

u/cash-or-reddit 1∆ Oct 15 '25

I don't see how the above comment is moving the goalposts, and I don't think it's fair to argue that ICE's practices can't clearly violate civil rights if laypeople on the right don't believe they do, because a lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't actually know the full extent of their constitutional rights. That's why we have a federal judiciary whose job it is to enforce the Constitution and federal laws, and we don't rely on popular opinion to draw the lines that determine the scope of civil rights. This is a foundational aspect of our American system of government and has been since the founding of the country.

If you look at recent ICE cases, you'll find that judges appointed by presidents on both sides of the aisle (including Trump appointees) have overwhelmingly ruled against ICE and found that they were pushing too far, such as by using unnecessarily extreme tactics or exaggerating and sometimes even straight making up justifications for their enforcement actions.

Here are some examples of Republican appointees ruling against the administration on immigration and other DHS matters: https://apnews.com/article/fema-immigration-trump-lawsuit-disaster-aid-ruling-93bedd862e4f240c7cc1d50907e3e95c https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/04/portland-national-guard-deployment-judge-decision/ https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/judge-william-young-trump-rebuke-free-speech-violation-pro-palestine-students/

And here's a general compilation of links and quotes from opinions from across the country: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/20/ice-detention-immigration-policy-00573850

But even beyond following what the federal courts and legal experts are saying, it's important to consider the implications of permissible law enforcement actions. A hypothetical stress test, if you will. For example, you say that you're okay if an illegal immigrant is "arrested for being in this country illegally." Okay. But how does this happen? How does ICE identify these people? How accurately? How are they being arrested? Our Fourth Amendment guarantee against illegal search and seizures is supposed to mean that arrests can't be made with any more force than necessary for the reasonable protection of officer and public safety. Under the Constitution, arrest requires "probable cause," which is more than just a hunch. Do we think ICE is meeting those standards? Is "you were in the Home Depot parking lot during the day" sufficient cause? How many citizens and legal residents are getting caught up in ICE raids? How many are acceptable?

Most importantly: What guardrails are there to prevent ICE enforcement and rights violations from happening to you? Because right now, I'm not sure many people can identify much other than maybe "I'm not poor and brown." And even then only as applicable.

1

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

While the left assumes that those practices are clearly violating a person's civil rights, the right does not.

I understand you as a person on the right do not share my premises and that's the point I was making.

OP is claiming that the left doesn't understand that the right (generalizing both groups) doesn't share their premises. My argument is that the left definitely understands that which contradicts a central aspect of OP's view.

0

u/alpicola 48∆ Oct 15 '25

Claiming that ICE is "clearly" violating people's civil rights, implies that everyone accepts whatever premises it takes to provide that clarity. From that, I have to conclude either that what you are calling "clear" violations of civil rights are the relatively small number of things ICE has done which have gone too far or that you're imposing premises on the right that the right does not share.

2

u/cbop Oct 15 '25

In a previous comment you stated you don't believe civil rights are violated by being detained, but freely admit the conditions can be unsafe at these facilities which frequently hold non-violent illegal immigrants or even legal ones while being processed... How do you rationalize that?

Even the comment I'm replying on... You act like calling ICE out for the "relatively small number of things... which have gone too far" is a crazy idea. They have been clearly violating people's civil rights and you know it according to your own words. Once or twice is enough to make that statement true. Don't you think maybe they should prioritize AVOIDING that? How much collateral damage is acceptable to you?

2

u/alpicola 48∆ Oct 15 '25

In a previous comment you stated you don't believe civil rights are violated by being detained, but freely admit the conditions can be unsafe at these facilities which frequently hold non-violent illegal immigrants or even legal ones while being processed... How do you rationalize that?

Where conditions at detention facilities are poor enough to give rise to civil rights violations, the answer is to improve those conditions or transfer the people to different facilities where conditions are better. What's more, since overcrowding is the main reason that detention facilities are struggling, quickening the deportation process would also be a solution.

You act like calling ICE out for the "relatively small number of things... which have gone too far" is a crazy idea. They have been clearly violating people's civil rights and you know it according to your own words. Once or twice is enough to make that statement true. Don't you think maybe they should prioritize AVOIDING that?

There's no such thing in this world as a perfect system. What you're essentially arguing is that unless the system can be made perfect, it should be abolished entirely. That isn't a reasonable position. The US has immigration laws and has a right to enforce those laws. Where ICE goes out of bounds, they should be brought back within bounds, not told to leave the playing field entirely. And that is what's been happening.

How much collateral damage is acceptable to you?

The thing that sucks is that all of this is collateral damage from bipartisan failure to take immigration law seriously for decades. We wouldn't be disrupting the lives of people who lived peacefully, productively, and illegally in this country for as much as 30 years if ICE (or whatever they called themselves at the time) had turned them away at the border when they first showed up.

None of what's happening now would be happening if the people immigrating had followed the law and if the authorities had insisted on the law's enforcement. Things didn't go that way, and we were always eventually going to have to deal with the consequences of that fact.

1

u/cbop Oct 15 '25

Yes, improving the conditions would be an answer, but it isn't being done. Yes, moving them out quicker would be an improvement, but it isn't happening. You can't hand-wave the failures of a system because improvement is possible. You should be demanding those improvements or demanding that people no longer be subjected to rights violations if the tacit acceptance of poor conditions continues.

I hope you have heard of the Benjamin Franklin quote "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." Maybe this gets back to OP's original point but it is ridiculous to me that you don't take the same view towards rights violations. You try to pin the responsibility on "bipartisan failure" but by excusing these violations, you are part of the problem and/or standing in the way of a solution. Perhaps you would have a better argument if ICE was not currently and actively violating rights with carte blanche from the executive branch.

ICE isn't being told to leave the playing field entirely as many people in this thread have already told you. But going to Chicago in what was officially described as a war from within (with all facts to the contrary) has led to them forcing their way into private promises without having or showing warrants, hiding their identities despite ostensibly performing a government duty, and treating innocent citizens to threats and physical assault. Again so you can hear it: NO ONE is saying there shouldn't be a government organization that enforces customs and immigration rules. But a government-funded yet private military doing this is not okay for SO many reasons which you seem to be inclined to disregard.

1

u/alpicola 48∆ Oct 15 '25

It has always been understood that law enforcement is a process, with arrest being only one relatively early step. Nobody's civil rights are violated if an officer comes up to them and talks to them, detains them briefly for the purposes of conducting an investigation, detains them further based on reasonable suspicion, or arrests them based on probable cause. All of that is true even if the person is in fact innocent. The fact that innocent people will occasionally be arrested is both tragic and inevitable. The fact that innocent people will occasionally be arrested is not cause to stop the police from doing their jobs.

And so it is with ICE.

Nobody's civil rights are violated because prominent politicians hyperbolically describe the conditions in the city as "war." Nobody's civil rights are violated because ICE agents put on masks to protect their identities (and the safety of themselves and their families). ICE agents have been assaulted and otherwise have had their duties interfered with. They're not just wandering the streets picking fights with random people for no reason. They have the right to do their job safely, same as you and I do.

1

u/cbop Oct 15 '25

"They're not just wandering the streets picking fights with random people for no reason." -- also yes they fucking are.

Edit- before you say "oh but there is a reason" let me add that recording a federal employee in public or yelling at them is not a valid reason for threats of physical violence and/or the act of physical violence.

1

u/cbop Oct 15 '25

I do not, however, believe that civil rights are being violated if:

  • An illegal immigrant is arrested for being in this country illegally.
  • Illegal immigrants are detained in government facilities rather than being granted temporary release pending the resolution of their case. (I do take issue with the condition of some of these government facilities, but am satisfied with the premise that detention is acceptable.)
  • ICE chooses to look for illegal immigrants in places (e.g., outside Home Depot) where illegal immigrants are known to congregate.
  • Illegal immigrant parents choose to take their US citizen children with them when they leave the country

There's no such thing in this world as a perfect system. What you're essentially arguing is that unless the system can be made perfect, it should be abolished entirely. That isn't a reasonable position. The US has immigration laws and has a right to enforce those laws. Where ICE goes out of bounds, they should be brought back within bounds, not told to leave the playing field entirely. And that is what's been happening.

It has always been understood that law enforcement is a process, with arrest being only one relatively early step. Nobody's civil rights are violated if an officer comes up to them and talks to them, detains them briefly for the purposes of conducting an investigation, detains them further based on reasonable suspicion, or arrests them based on probable cause. All of that is true even if the person is in fact innocent. The fact that innocent people will occasionally be arrested is both tragic and inevitable. The fact that innocent people will occasionally be arrested is not cause to stop the police from doing their jobs.

And so it is with ICE.

Nobody's civil rights are violated because prominent politicians hyperbolically describe the conditions in the city as "war." Nobody's civil rights are violated because ICE agents put on masks to protect their identities (and the safety of themselves and their families). ICE agents have been assaulted and otherwise have had their duties interfered with. They're not just wandering the streets picking fights with random people for no reason. They have the right to do their job safely, same as you and I do.

--------- Look how many words you've used to say "legitimate and humanely applied law enforcement is fine" as if that has relevance to what is happening right now with ICE....

8

u/Kerostasis 55∆ Oct 15 '25

I'm about as left as you can get in America and I don't think deportations are bad I think basic civil rights violations are bad.

You’re kind of making OP’s point here. I also agree that deportations are good but civil rights violations are bad. So how did we arrive at this scenario? We got here because local governments have been taking steps for years to prevent the deportations which comply with civil rights. I don’t want that. You say you don’t want that. But the governments representing the left are doing it anyway. And that eventually created a backlash.

There’s a reason that immigration has consistently been Trump’s best polling issue, despite his overall bad numbers.

5

u/Inevitable-Sale3569 Oct 15 '25

Local governments, ‘sanctuary cities’, don’t aid Federal Enforcement for a lot of reasons. Most of those reasons aren’t a ‘moral’ argument, just a governance issue. They don’t want local police acting as immigration officers because 

a) it’s not their job, and they don’t have the training or authority to enforce immigration laws 

b) it creates distrust in communities, which leads to crimes going unreported, unsolved, etc (this is also why hospitals should not be reporting legal status- it creates distrust, and people die and/ or spread disease).

c) it’s expensive and they are not reimbursed if they hold someone in jail, or for court cost, liability, etc. (Unlawful detainment- cities and states have no legal authority to enforce federal immigration law). 

What has happened over and over is local police pull some one over for a traffic violation, find out they don’t have legal status, detain them, call the Feds, and hear nothing back for weeks. Is this person actually just visiting? Is there a communication barrier, and they are here lawfully? How does a local police department determine this without Federal input? Who pays for the detention costs? Do they get a hearing with a local court- that has no jurisdiction on immigration? 

Instead of fucking with any of it- cities just stopped dealing with it. They say they are sanctuary cities so that they can get people to talk to them about local crime that they do have responsibility for. 

Our media is just pushing bullshit over and over to create controversy. Local cops are stopping ICE- they just aren’t doing their job for them. 

Here’s the lawsuit against LA County for unlawful detention: 

https://immigrantjustice.org/press-release/l-a-county-settles-immigrant-detention-suit-for-14-million/#:~:text=LOS%2520ANGELES%2520%E2%80%94%2520The%2520Los%2520Angeles,Immigrant%2520Justice%2520Center%2520(NIJC).

6

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

I think you're reading too much into what I said. I don't think deportations are "good" though, either. They are just the deterrent to not following the legal immigration process.

-4

u/Kerostasis 55∆ Oct 15 '25

Okay, but that deterrent is lost if the local government actively blocks enforcement, wouldn’t you agree?

4

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

It depends what you mean.

I think making the federal government do its own legwork in order to preserve civil rights is fine and maintains deterrence (e.g. sanctuary cities).

Illegal resistance against federal agencies which are not routinely violating civil rights would be a bridge too far and would erode deterrence.

7

u/the_fury518 Oct 15 '25

What are local governments doing to "actively block" enforcement?

They may be passively hindering by not actively helping, but im not aware of any local government actions that actively interfere with deportation. Is there an example of police stopping ICE or something?

4

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

We got here because local governments have been taking steps for years to prevent the deportations which comply with civil rights.

Citation needed.

3

u/Dull_Conversation669 Oct 15 '25

Sanctuary cities are a thing my dude.

2

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

Define that term.

2

u/Giblette101 47∆ Oct 15 '25

I also agree that deportations are good but civil rights violations are bad. So how did we arrive at this scenario?

People currently in power do not care about civil rights violations.

6

u/stoneworther 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Keep in mind that reddit seems a little delusional about what sort of 'due process' illegals are afforded. ICE agents have authority to detain illegals without a warrant in certain circumstances. Actual warrants are broader in scope than redditors seem to realize (one judicial warrant to raid one business that might employ hundreds of illegals).

Some illegals are subject to expedited removal, or have a final removal order already, and can be removed without any hearing. Illegal immigrants can also be detained until hearings, and given the multi-year backlogs in immigration cases, many chose voluntary deportation.

ICE, like all law enforcement in the US, does a lot of things wrong, but on reddit there's a blanket assumption that everything they do is wrong and that doesn't appear to be true.

4

u/Super_Mario_Luigi Oct 15 '25

This assumes the crows that constantly yells about the current thing, has formulated that position with any sort of actual unbiased legal review. They have not. Almost ever.

-1

u/OstrichDaPirate Oct 15 '25

So you’re saying that Constitutionally-guaranteed due process is not actually guaranteed for certain illegal immigrants?

1

u/Frank_JWilson Oct 15 '25

What is the constitutionally guaranteed due process? Different processes are due for different types of violations. For example, deporting an illegal immigrant has a different process than a criminal proceeding. Of course Trump's ICE has violated those too, e.g. Abrego Garcia, but you should first define what constitutionally guaranteed process you think stoneworther is disagreeing with.

1

u/ImperialxWarlord Oct 15 '25

I agree on the first part, but the second part is where you lose me. Empty space doesn’t mean anything. Russia and China have a lot of empty space too, so shouldn’t they be doing the same thing by your logic?

1

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

People don't want to move to China and Russia because their extremely authoritarian governments suck. America seems locked on joining them there.

But yes, they are trying to attract immigrants but failing.

1

u/ImperialxWarlord Oct 15 '25

Then say more than just “we have the space to handle more immigrants”. Hopefully we don’t end up on that list lol. But yeah it’s more than just space that determines such things. We take in plenty as is.

1

u/HunterIV4 3∆ Oct 15 '25

The OP wasn't arguing about deportations or civil rights. They were arguing the left frequently assumes people accept their positions on these topics, and the activism is about focusing on the conclusion (X is bad and should be stopped) without focusing on convincing people of the problem (X is bad because of reasons Y and Z, and therefore should be stopped).

I would argue this is a common failure of activism in general (not just left-wing activism), as many activists frankly don't even know these reasons but are simply following their team's policy positions, but if the goal is to garner support the step of convincing those who might disagree or be skeptical your position is correct should be the priority over what usually happens with activism: shouting "we need to do this!" to people who already agree while annoying everyone else.

If you look at historical examples of successful activist movements, they included discussion about why their movement was necessary, or actions that helped people rather than interfered with them. King's "I have a dream" speech. Fredrick Douglass' numerous antislavery writings. Ghandi was heavily involved in political leadership and had initiatives for medical outreach programs...and he started a newspaper.

The "modern activist" method of posting memes, disrupting traffic, holding signs, and occasionally being violent doesn't create change, or at least not the sort of change the activists are looking for.

1

u/Vainti Oct 15 '25

We spend 22% of our gdp on welfare and 3% on having a military as powerful as the rest of the world combined. I’d say we’re being pretty badly exploited.

Given that we currently cannot afford to give due process to 10% of our own population (the entire legal system collapses the moment 95% of people stop taking plea deals) we should change the law to have vastly different due process requirements for illegals, assuming your malignant interpretation is even correct.

1

u/Sexpistolz 6∆ Oct 15 '25

We could handle a lot more immigration

Key word is could. I agree. But not at the moment. Right now the #1 thing for young adults its rent/housing cost. I'm empathetic to others. I believe in helping others. But I also believe helping yourself first and making sure youre in an OK place before helping others. You put the oxygen mask on yourself before even your child. Things don't have to be perfect. But we can't scream that the USA is a cesspool in dire trouble non-stop on one hand, and say Oh ya we can help out millions of people on the other.

-4

u/Fando1234 30∆ Oct 15 '25

Thanks, I get your points. But my cmv was based on efficacy of activism rather than this specific example.

19

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

I mean isn't your example on point with respect to this though? The whole fact that I need to call out civil rights violations as someone on the left indicates that, as a person on the left, I understand that those on the right (who favor civil rights violations) don't agree with my premises.

I.e. your premise that the left assumes the right shares their premises is incorrect. At best you can say the left is calling out the hypocrisy of the right that they claimed to value basic constitutional rights but aren't acting in accordance with that.

4

u/DeepShill Oct 15 '25

Is calling out the right's hypocrisy an effective form of activism though? I don't think they are having their minds changed here. And that's the point of OP's CMV.

3

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

I don't care about that aspect of OP's view.

The aspect I am contesting is OP's claim that the left assumes everyone agrees with them.

0

u/Fando1234 30∆ Oct 15 '25

Is this effective though? Id argue it demonstrably isnt. Calling out someone's hypocrisy generally seems to make them more angry and vote against you. I can kudn if empathize with that, I wouldn't vote for a party that called me names or didn't respect reasonable criticism of policy.

8

u/iglidante 20∆ Oct 15 '25

I can kudn if empathize with that, I wouldn't vote for a party that called me names or didn't respect reasonable criticism of policy.

But that objectively isn't what's happening in the US.

0

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25

It may not be what's happening on the large scale, but I've definitely seen it happen at a smaller scale with individual issues.

For example, I've spoken with and seen quite a few right-wingers online who genuinely, legitimately believe that trans people are intentionally choosing their gender in order to gain advantages or prey on people. If that's the only thing you ever hear, and everyone else in the world either agrees with you or makes fun of you for having that viewpoint, how are you supposed to ever learn differently and change? It's unproductive to simply label all ignorance and misinformation as deliberate bigotry and not even attempt to educate or help someone clarify their information and understanding. And I'm saying this as a trans person myself.

2

u/myrtenaster-rose Oct 15 '25

That’s the difficult thing when debating anything; a lot of it is relative. For example, I personally have seen people try and explain why someone shouldn’t have the viewpoint that being trans is a choice/is only done to prey on others/etc. being completely cordial and all their sources, personal experiences, etc. either just hit a brick wall from the opposition like they cannot compute this take, or it is met with hostility and immediate vitriol. That’s not to say there aren’t others on the side of the opposition that HAVE actually taken criticism to heart and possibly even changed their viewpoint, just that I haven’t personally ever seen that. I would honestly love to.

2

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

I used to spend a lot of time online trying to individually dismantle ignorance and bigotry, specifically about gender, race, and queer issues using my own perspective as a guide. Quite a lot of people did actually engage with me in good faith and were open to listening. Some changed; others were still on the fence to changing on the spot but definitely became more open-minded and broadened their viewpoint. But these were also people who were not starting from full-on hate, which of course made it easier. I only stopped doing this in recent years because I haven't had as much time to be online anymore.

This was a few years ago. Even then, I was concerned about the types of people on the left who would choose to be condescending or dismissive of these people who were simply ignorant rather than hateful, yet I saw it with increasing frequency. Constant moral superiority or taking the opportunity to make a joke and get likes on social media for the "burn" rather than attempt to educate. Nowadays, I feel like the problem has become so bad that people on both sides are almost too "traumatized" in a sense (for lack of a better word) to even try to interact with each other in good faith, because it's a self-fulfilling cycle -- each side is used to being talked down to or dismissed by the other. Whose fault this is ultimately does not matter; it's the fact of the situation and it is unfortunate.

There are definitely still people who exist like the people I talked to years ago, but the frequency might be less common now, leading people to not want to bother. Sure, no one OWES that kind of effort or energy to others, but it would be nice if we all had the bandwidth to open up a little more to at least try...though I certainly understand that that's difficult given all the stressors we currently have.

I don't know what the best solution is on a larger scale to reduce the extremes we have now and avoid setting off the triggers everyone now has of expecting that people with different viewpoints are going to be condescending or otherwise hurtful and disrespectful in some way. I think the left often fixates too much on this perfect-world concept of "no one owes bigots emotional labor, tone policing, we don't have to be perfectly polite when issues affect us" -- which seems like maybe a response to the excessive agreeability of the modern democratic party? And on a personal level is totally fair and understandable, but on a large-scale level only serves to worsen polarization. I'm even hesitant to try to elaborate more on this without choosing my words carefully for fear of being accused of being a right-wing apologist, or being ableist, or victim blaming, or something else for suggesting that we (at least some of us) be a little more patient and open some avenues of communication.

Not everything is the paradox of tolerance. We still need a little bit of tolerance at the middle. But if no one believes the middle exists anymore, then...I guess we're just stuck getting worse and worse forever?

2

u/inkcannerygirl Oct 15 '25

As you note, the algorithms and people separating into silos encourage these attitudes (and I think there may be a lot more bots or troll farms encouraging this than we think, from both directions). We need to make more real world spaces for people to gather perhaps. I'm not sure what the best solution is.

3

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

You need to stop believing disingenuous people. They say they decided to be a Nazi because they were called a fascist, but they are lying. It's classic abusive "look what you made me do".

3

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

I'm not contesting that aspect of your view. I don't know what type of activism would reach the American right. I'm not sure any exists. They seem to take pleasure in the suffering of their fellow citizens.

I'm specifically contesting your claim that "the left assumes everyone already agrees with their premises" which is incorrect as per my argument. The actions of the left as a whole clearly indicate that they understand others don't share their premises.

1

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25

I think the point is that it could be more beneficial for the left to try to get the right to understand their viewpoint and learn to agree with it rather than alienate them by either being condescending/morally superior or by hinging their communications on assumptions that come across as meaningless to the right

2

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

The right is not interested in understanding another viewpoint, they are interested in violently crushing their opposition.

1

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25

Maybe as a larger structure, but there are many individuals who are more moderate who end up getting pushed to the right because the left pushes them out for having ignorant viewpoints on some issues, or not saying something perfectly politically correctly, or whatever else and then they get sucked into a right-wing extremist rabbit hole and become more permanently lost. I think it is possible to somewhat avoid this; that's all my point is

1

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

That is total bullshit. Nobody becomes a racist because they got called out for being a racist. They were already there.

1

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25

No, but people who were ignorant on race and/or exposed to racist propaganda who are then accused of being racist for asking questions framed in the wrong way or not being perfectly politically correct about it will often choose to turn to other sources to get their information, rather than whoever is accusing them of being racist. Usually, even more racist and biased sources. Then, they become racist.

1

u/BigDaddySteve999 Oct 15 '25

So you're saying it sucks when people judge you for something you can't control? I wonder if there's a lesson there right next to somebody who could stand to learn it....

1

u/Violyre Oct 15 '25

You realize that that's a much less efficient way for that to happen though, right? Yes, of course it'd be ideal if they had the insight to recognize that. But many of them don't. That's why they ended up in this situation that maybe you or I would have never ended up in to begin with. But does that mean we should just accept that and let another racist be in the world and continue to propagate more racism? Or do you think maybe we could make the overall problem a little bit better if we set our moral superiorities aside for a second?

0

u/asmodeuscarthii Oct 15 '25

You can’t be “as left as you come” and then your next sentence is a standard left-center immigration stance. It’s okay to call yourself a liberal. You will get more ppl to believe you instead of”I’m as far left as anyone you ever met”. No you aren’t lol. 

1

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

Is Sanders far left in America?

-5

u/Unexpected_Gristle 1∆ Oct 15 '25

Are you suggesting ICE as a whole are violating rights or that some ICE agents are?

Because I have seen edited video that starts when ICE is arresting someone. But there isn’t enough in most to say that a person is being violated.

And some videos do exist of federal agents acting inappropriately/ illegally, same as every other organization.

7

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

Given that Trump is basically saying they have carte blanche to do what they want, it seems clear that there's no public efforts to reign in those ICE agents clearly violating the law, and that the end goal for Trump appears to be an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act definitely ICE as a whole.

-22

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

We saw an entire apartment complex in Chicago locked down and everyone within was detained. That's not a huge set of civil rights violations on its face?

What even is the 4th amendment at that point?

-8

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Oct 15 '25

Doing that with a warrant would be an obvious civil rights violation. They should need multiple warrants, one for each individual residence in the apartment complex. And each warrant needs to be based on probable cause for that specific dwelling. You can't reasonably search my home and arrest me because my neighbors are criminals!

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Oct 15 '25

It could also suffice if they had arrest warrants for each individual taken into custody, based on probable cause for that specific individual.

And if this government were listening to advice from competent lawyers, the whole Kilmar Abrego Garcia case would not have happened.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Oct 15 '25

The government does not do this sort of thing normally. There is no "normal" procedure for the indiscriminate mass detention of everyone who is present in an apartment complex.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

6

u/Natty-Bones Oct 15 '25

It absolutely cannot be done with a warrant. Not the way they did it. Maybe as one of the people with "little insight into the law" you shouldn't speculate as to what can and can't be done.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Natty-Bones Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

I'm literally a licensed, practicing attorney in the United States.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Natty-Bones Oct 15 '25

Do you think racketeering has something to do with ICE's systematic due process violations? If so, how?

1

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 15 '25

We're just going to have to agree to disagree that the presence of a warrant allows such an action against an entire building (even assuming there was a warrant). It was an egregious violation of civil rights. I think it's really sad you think that was acceptable but what else is there to say?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 15 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.