WandererintheWilderness
No bio...
User ID: 3496
WandererintheWilderness
6d ago
I actually talk to immigrants, including illegal ones, every day. Legal immigrants think ICE is snatching anyone, legal/illegal/citizen who happens to be brown and black-bagging them to never be seen again. I have had multiple strangers tell me they believed this.
That is exactly my point. This is the widespread belief. I agree it's obviously not actually happening, but it is so widespread that I don't think that fact can be attributed to "bad faith lies" alone - at least, not in the sense of lies perpetrated by enemies of ICE and which ICE is fighting back against with any real vigor. I think the prevalence of that paranoia proves that ICE is very bad at optics. Either they are deliberately encouraging this kind of paranoia, or at the absolute minimum, they are inordinately terrible at fighting back against the smears. Which brings me to my next point -
Then please justify that claim.
They have not made any PR efforts to counteract that impression. (To my knowledge! I would be happy to be corrected! But if they have, why do they never come up in these threads?) If what we're looking at is the result of an unwanted smear campaign, then where's the counter-propaganda? Where are the ICE spokesmen releasing prominent public statements to the tune of "we have nothing against legal immigrants and we will do everything in our power to make sure they are safe, we take the risk of a raid affecting the innocent very very seriously, you have nothing to worry about", to camera, in so many words? It's one thing to be accused of being evil by your enemies' propaganda. It's another to let that propaganda spread indefinitely without supplying your own side of the story. At that point, I can't help but think that you like the story your enemies are telling about you. Particularly when half of your own supporters will cheerfully say that yes, you are creating a climate of fear and that's a good thing because [galaxy brain reasoning about incentivizing self-deportation].
They're projecting themselves as competent, efficient, confident, inevitable, and actually having a great time doing it.
That may be what they're attempting to do, but if so, I don't think it's working. "Chaotic", in the sense of "unpredictable; not reliably constrained by rules", is definitely part of the current image - see all the hubbub about their (supposed?) lack of respect for due process. I think if you're a legal immigrant, or indeed a birthright citizen who looks superficially foreign, you aren't currently going to have absolute confidence that ICE will leave you alone - or even let you go with an apology, if they should get you by mistake. To an even greater extent, if you are an illegal immigrant, I don't think you're going to be confident that ICE will guarantee you all the protections and legal counsel that you're entitled to.
And I… don't think this is an effect of left-wing smear campaigns? I get the vibe that these are, if not objectively justified fears, then at least fears that ICE are happy to encourage, presumably because they feel like it enhances their intimidation factor. They could certainly do more to fight that impression, if it is indeed a misconception. Hence, optics-wise - chaotic, not just efficient.
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
I don't think faul_sname meant that the reaction is overwhelmingly negative. But if the positive reactions are along the lines of "hell yeah! make illegals afraid!" rather than "ah, normal policemen doing their work normally, how neat and orderly" then it's still support for the claim that ICE is deliberately projecting an image of themselves as scary chaotic mofos. Which they are. You might very well think that's a good thing because it'll intimidate illegals into self-deporting, but "ICE are scary goons" isn't left-wing slander, it's the image they're deliberately leaning into because that's what Trump's base wants them to do.
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
But fmac is not talking about material reality. fmac is talking about the optics. If people hate and fear ICE officers in an unprecedented way, this is strong evidence that their optics suck. Being feared and hated doesn't prove they're actually behaving badly, but it does, almost tautologically, mean that they are giving off a scary hatable vibe.
WandererintheWilderness
9d ago
Well, mods aren't machines. But I also think it's because your post was a 'low-effort', two-sentences thing. An inflammatory term which might represent a drop in the ocean in some multi-paragraph effortpost, and skate by as a result, is more of an issue when it's at the very core of a very brief comment.
WandererintheWilderness
9d ago
I mean, if that's your concern, "shitlib" wouldn't exactly invite less left-wing pushback.
WandererintheWilderness
10d ago
I think the idea is moreso that although they fantasize themselves to be radicals fighting the Man, they will eventually realize that Big Woke is the Man and, far from being countercultural rebels, they're fighting to preserve the current institutions and balance of power.
WandererintheWilderness
10d ago
How is this different from simply "woke"? You cite it as just one trait, but everything else on your list is a trait I would expect to be implicit in describing someone as "woke".
How do you square that with Murderers and Thieves that derive enjoyment from their actions?
In the usual utilitarian way - "as humanly possible" includes making trade-offs for the greater good, where we'll sometimes deny Bob what would make him happy because it would involve unacceptable discomfort to Alice. (In Thought Experiment Land you can consequently imagine a utility monster who can only derive pleasure from hurting other people, and who tragically can never be allowed to be happy in a just society; but in the real world, even seriously twisted people are capable of getting their kicks some other way than their preferred vice, and very few preferences for illegal things are truly fixed in a way that can't be satisfied by e.g. roleplay, so the question doesn't really arise.)
In this hypothetical, your Ideal World is post-scarcity? If yes and you would be comfortable with open borders for a post-scarcity USA, how important is the local culture to you?
If we're talking about a post-scarcity USA in particular, where somehow the States have unlimited resources but the rest of the Earth hasn't caught up, then yes, you'd have a moral imperative to have open borders. I don't value the preservation of the local culture at zero, but human beings' lives come first. That's not a very likely scenario, although it's a morally instructive one and what I had in mind when I said that "in an ideal world" we would be able to take in all economic refugees. (Much as "in an ideal world" where I'm a trillionaire I would be able to give ten thousand bucks to every homeless person I meet without sacrificing an inch of my personal comfort and safety. This is, obviously, a casual, non-rigorous usage of "ideal world", since of course in a truly ideal world there wouldn't be homeless people in the first place.)
In an actually ideal, truly post-scarcity world… well, who knows? Such a world would have such fundamentally different dynamics from ours that I'd be surprised if we keep the same political system at all, never mind the specifics of immigration law. For one thing, if resource shortage is no longer a concern worldwide, is there even much demand for immigration to the US? Somehow I don't think people would be lining up by the million to flock to America and get minimum-wage jobs if they had guaranteed food, housing and healthcare back home. In that scenario, maybe the amount of people who want to move to the US per year shrinks to such an extent that concerns about alterations to the culture become negligible, and at that point it would be churlish to create artificial hurdles out of chauvinism.
Still, conceivably demand remains high and damage to the local culture per marginal immigrant remains constant, even if conditions back home are no worse for the would-be immigrants than in the US by objective metrics. At that point, certainly it would be morally acceptable to decide we want completely closed borders to preserve the "local culture". I don't really know which way I'd vote, but I would be fine with my fellow citizens voting purely based on personal preference and I would respect the outcome of that vote, whatever it may be. Weighing whether we'd rather preserve our local culture than allow safe, healthy, affluent foreigners maximal freedom of movement is a totally different question from the current state of affairs. Maybe the US splinters, with some states being open-borders and others not. I think it might well happen at an even smaller scale, with whole counties becoming vast gated communities some of which are outsider-hostile and others not. That seems like maybe the stablest equilibrium for Utopia.
But then again, would Americans be found to in fact care that much about immigrants' effect on "the local culture" in a world where "immigrants" aren't synonymous with "criminal underclass"? Where they aren't "taking our jobs"? How about if the native population is now immortal and at no danger of actually being demographically replaced? After all, a post-scarcity world is realistically a post-singularity one as well. And what are we even talking about at this point? It's unknown unknowns all the way down.
What makes you think they will not just run away and not show up to their deportation? Saw off their monitor bracelets and go into hiding?
As I mentioned in another reply further down the chain, my ideal regime of policing would also be such that this just wouldn't be possible. There would always be a cop close enough that they can get notified as soon as a bracelet detects funny business, and zoom to its last recorded location before the alert.
In any event, you know, the ankle bracelets are only a shot in the dark. I don't claim they're the miracle cure-all. I only bring them up as an example of a middle-of-the-road policy that's neither maximally repressive nor maximally permissive with regards to what to do with illegals once detected. I just don't think "reliably expel illegal immigrants, without ruining their lives more than is necessary to do so" is an impossible ask for a well-run machinery of state in the modern world. There's gotta be a way, we just haven't found it yet, mostly for lack of looking (because the Left doesn't want the illegals expelled, and the Right wants to be cruel about it).
Well, no, but I don't believe abortion doctors are murderers, either. Or indeed that pro-lifers are just patriarchal oppressors obsessed with Controlling Women's Bodies™. That's not in question. It's just that inaccurately ascribing evil motives to the opposition is still the bread and butter of politics, and you don't meaningfully have freedom of speech if you start banning individual instances for being especially untrue or incendiary.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
This seems like a needlessly pedantic hill to die on. Substitute "Nazis" for "murderous white supremacists", or however you want to phrase the combination of immorality and ideology which Leftists are clearly pointing to when they call people "Nazis". But I don't think anyone is honestly confused about this. It's only technically wrong in the same sense that "Senator McExample is a fucking asshole" would be inaccurate insofar as McExample is not literally an ambulatory anus.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
Vandalizing unoccupied Teslas speaks ill of the culprits' maturity, but widespread tolerance for "heck yeah, let's mess up Bad Man supporters' stupid-looking hell-cars, that'll show them" does not make me despair of human nature in the same way "heck yeah, hang that father of three from a lamppost" would. Those seem to be in very different realms, and just because the former is disappointingly common, does not make me lose hope about the rarity of the latter sentiment.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
I very much did not say that addressing the problem "in any way" is "too much to ask". I was replying to your first comment, where you claimed that because the Left isn't reacting as violently as when they're tilting at racist windmills, they may as well not be doing anything at all. My point is that "address the problem as violently as they address supposed racism" (or even half as violently as that!) is a much higher bar than "address the problem in any way at all", and just because they aren't doing the former, doesn't prove they aren't doing the latter.
But also,
then at least spare me the farce of rolling up in the first place and asking what I expect the left to do.
that wasn't actually me. Different users altogether. Check the usernames.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
It's a massive improvement for the illegal alien, I find myself noticing.
Well, it's a massive improvement in terms of overall human flourishing, kindness and happiness, and therefore by my values, a massive improvement in the moral standing of the people doing the expelling.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
That's a very strong point I hadn't considered in quite those terms.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
That's a fair spin. I think some of my remaining discomfort with this state of affairs goes back to the sense that ICE's scary-goons stylings are escalating tensions - I feel like playing these sorts of games is how you get a low-trust, high-crime society where even people who obey the law don't really respect it. The word among the populace being "If you commit crimes you'll fall into the hands of a bunch of violent bastards" maybe mostly works as a brute-force way to deter crime if nothing else does, but it seems strictly inferior in terms of social stability and well-being, when compared to a society where the police are genuinely viewed as admirable, aspirational, pro-social figures the way firefighters are. Fight fire with fire and the world goes up in smoke, etc. etc. Building a climate of fear is inferior to building an actually orderly society.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
You sneak, you edited your post! Two days or two weeks, that's a question of economics to me
Sorry! I have a recurring issue of looking at what I've just posted and suddenly getting a new idea. For what it's worth the duration isn't a crux for me, "two weeks" was a shot-in-the-dark example. I would still consider two days a massive improvement over "get in the van now".
No offense, but I get the feeling that you effectively want more immigration.
No, I want human beings to be as happy and comfortable as humanly possible. Open borders in a society that is not yet post-scarcity does not lead to that, therefore excess immigration must be stopped, but if we're going to regretfully turn people away we should try to be decent about it, because in an ideal world they should be able to stay if they want. Giving people time to collect their belongings and say goodbye to any acquaintances they might have made during their stay seems like basic decency.
I think of this in Rawlsian and golden-rule terms - were I in the position of an illegal immigrant who's been discovered, I would acknowledge that exiling me is within the rights, and in the best interests, of the body politic, but I would still regard a few weeks' grace period to put my affairs in order as something to which I would feel entitled regardless as a human being, being that two weeks more or less are not imposing a meaningful economic burden on the country the way my continued lifelong presence might (while they make a great difference to my own happiness). If defectors abusing that grace period to escape make it impossible to extend this basic kindness to arrestees who cooperate, then we need a system to crack down and disincentivize such abuse, so as to be able to once again extend that basic kindness to people who cooperate.
As I said elsewhere in the thread my ideal mode of policing would involve a lot more low-scale police presence. The way I imagine it, as soon as something screwy is detected with someone's monitor, the nearest beat cop gets an alert and takes a look at the last known coordinates. Very different from "if you miss a court date then maybe possibly something gets done within seven business days".
I don't claim this system is foolproof, this isn't my job and it's only a sketch of an idea that I've kicked around in the back of my mind. But I'd be surprised if cleverer minds than me couldn't expand it into a functional system. I think there's a lot of untapped potential in this sort of system, due to the stigma associated with putting tags on minorities' bodies.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
I think this is an unreasonable standard. Cleaning house is never going to involve the same enthusiasm as fighting the outgroup, even if it's a sincere effort.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
Or the enforcement can also be ineffective, because grabbing them and putting them in a holding facility is Stormtrooper-ish, so letting them out with a court date gives them more opportunity to disappear again.
I think if I were Immigration Czar I would try a scheme with ankle monitors. ICE agents identify you as illegal, you get tagged and a reasonable timeline to put your affairs in order and leave the country. If that time elapses, or the monitor mysteriously turns off - then you get detained.
And also, there's the problem that ICE is also opposed to organized criminal elements, like human smugglers, that are aligned with cartels. Cartels are be perfectly willing and able to terrorize ICE agents and their families.
This is true but seems like a very good argument for separating ICE into two different corps, one that fights organized crime and one that enforces immigration laws. Outside of Trump's rhetorical interest in acting like all illegals are violent gang members, it doesn't seem especially rational for them to have both jobs, precisely because very different approaches and MOs are proportionate when dealing with one group vs the other.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
I agree with most of this, yes.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I am leery of the "other tactics (even stochastically)" bit, which I think can too easily be used as a bludgeon against free speech expressing what the bludgeon-wielding side deems to be wrongthink. If it is appropriate for non-violent pro-life activists to refer to abortion doctors as murderers - and it must be appropriate, because that is their legitimate moral belief and freedom of speech means nothing if they cannot express it - then it must remain appropriate for non-violent pro-immigration extremists to refer to ICE agents as Nazis.
But that's only one part of your post, and really a whole other conversation from the core issue here.
WandererintheWilderness
20d ago
This doesn't seem to work on Mangione.
Well, sure, the phrase "their optics suck" is ambiguous. I think it can cover either of "ICE are unsuccessful at shaking off an unwanted bad reputation" or "ICE are successfully cultivating a bad reputation", and I agree the latter seems more likely, though some people in this thread vehemently deny it even as other ICE-supporters embrace it. But it still seems fair to call that "their optics suck", it would just mean that their optics suck on purpose for some inane galaxy-brained reason.
More options
Context Copy link