Philosophy Major Snatched by ICE During Citizenship Interview
dailynous.com
dailynous.com
With this guy, I can find no fault. If you watch his 60 Minutes interview, it seems heartfelt and authentic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grj328-hlhA Plus, if he was born Palestinian and is now a Buddhist, that means that he willingly chose to endure the risk of getting killed as an apostate.
Something must be done.
Is it possible that some pieces of the administration are trying exactly to convey a point, that they "cannot give a toss"? Because that is what transpires from many signals.
You know, some interpretation of "realism" as in "proposing the beast as normalcy in a blindness towards morals"?
It seems as if brutality is actively proposed as a value.
I haven't watched the video yet but just FYI, there are Palestinians of several different religions, e.g. Palestinian Christians, Druze, etc.
One wonders what the point of packing the courts was, if they weren’t going to bother upholding them anyway.
Mitch McConnell talking about "the judges project" is miles away from appointments under Democratic administrations. You can read about it:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and...
The Democratic party did not and does not have the stomach for doing the same, even when their voters have called for it. If you think otherwise, prove it.
Nearly a century ago, FDR was already threatening to pack the court if the justices didn't quit striking down his blatantly unconstitutional legislation. It continued steadily from there with the Warren court bench-legislating at a historic scale.
You are misrepresenting what the actual status quo is to make an attempt to restore it appear malicious or power-hungry.
Packing courts with partisans is malicious and power hungry no matter how you spin it. "Restoring balance" is rhetoric used by all kinds of historical leaders you do not want to be compared to...
Dig up.
I do not care for Trump's actions, and I don't believe I wrote an explicit defense of them. I will happily defend the overall policy of sending every single illegal back. The recent comments to which y'all are replying aren't addressing Trump's disregard for law, they're addressing your claim that the right has been abusing or weaponizing the justice system.
I don't see Elon getting sent to a prison that nobody ever gets released from against the orders of the supreme court. It sounds like you're just apologising for fascism at this point.
It sounds like you’re looking for an excuse to defend illegals.
*>"packing courts at all levels with friendly partisan judges. And openly talking about doing so while doing it." <^
from the beginning.
That's where we're at at the moment.
But these are not normal people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru...
I would reply with the point made by the Supreme Court of the USA, that the "courts cannot interfere with prerogatives of the executive branch". Which of course leaves big questions about power and apparent abuse of the same, and about what cynics call "collaterals".
One detail in clearer terms: if «federal courts [had] no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way», where lies the responsibility of the State towards its victims?
Philosophy major is something educated classes can related to as in "It could happen to me or my friends."
Moreover, it explains who this person is - a student («a philosophy major at Columbia University who is due to graduate later this semester»).
Let it also be noted that Garry Tan is overtly conservative (rails on X about many of the same social issues than animate Trump supporters) and PG holds strongly right wing (largely Burkean) views on many subjects.
edit: The discussion has already been flagged/suppressed. There is zero contemptuous discussion, only a few reasonable back and forth threads about various things.
PG is not someone I'd consider remotely right-wing. I periodically see tweets of his surface and he seems strongly opposed to the current administration.
“Soft-on-crime policies have turned SF into a free-for-all. Shoplifting, car break-ins, and open drug use aren’t victimless. We need a DA who’ll enforce the law and cops who aren’t afraid to act.”
Said progressives had their chance - more than enough chances - at fixing the issues in SF "their way". When one solution fails, it is natural and sensible to try others. This is why you can see SF voters shifting their positions too. I do not think that an incredibly leftist city magically turned into trump supporters.
It's not helpful for the left to act like Trump has a monopoly on legitimate use of law enforcement and maintaining some level of order.
Tan (net worth $100M) explicitly rejects the systemic forces perspective and focuses on the moral failings of the weakest in society:
“Crime isn’t some abstract social problem—it’s people choosing to break the law. Stop excusing shoplifters and drug dealers as ‘victims of circumstance.’ We need consequences, not endless debates about root causes.”
You can't always hug it out, and there are indeed people who put their wants and needs above those of others
This aligns pretty well with my personal view. Maybe we can go figure out root causes later. Depending on those causes and the possible means to address them, maybe we can enact policy changes to reduce the amount of crime in the future. All that is, however, secondary to what we must do today: return to zero-tolerance policies for petty crime to make the city liveable again.
"Radical left-wing lunatics"
I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else:
Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places).
In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere.
SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.
> decay of public order that matches much more closely with changes in policing and justice
I don't think anyone is claiming that SF could not implement Singapore style policing (for example) and see improvements in "public order".
Right wing solutions abound, everything from putting people in rehabilitation camps, mental hospitals, mandatory jail time for minor offenses, inpatient substance abuse facilities, chemical castration of the poor, deportations to El Salvador, etc.
Many in the US have a right wing impulse when thinking about certain types of criminality, typically the kinds of crimes committed by the underclass. This impulse builds on disgust, fear and dehumanization, but the foundational element is moral judgment of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. I think it's helpful to have a mental heuristic to reduce susceptibility to this kind of thinking.
Consider, for example, the amount of insider trading that occurred in financial markets recently from all of the pumping of markets with various tariff announcements. The money stolen via insider trading would be more than enough to buy a 3000 square foot home and personal chef services for 15 years for every single homeless person in the bay area. Let's not pretend that smashed car windows are the only kind of crime that matters.
In today's world with such rampant fraud and white collar crime everywhere, anyone who uses their platform to focus people's attention on the crime of the weakest among us clearly has a very right wing view of whose lawlessness needs to be stopped and whose should be permitted.
I don't like Singapore's solution; I think it's too authoritarian. Most people agree that there are benefits to a police state in terms of public order but we consciously forsake those in exchange for liberty.
What does nothing for liberty, and also nothing for public order, is allowing open-air drug use. Is failing to prosecute property crime. Is catch-and-release policing because the DA won't do squat. I don't think the common man cares about this due to dehumanization of the poor, it's due to the fact that we are the ones actually victimized by this. Joe average is much less affected by John Wallstreet trading on insider information. His car getting busted into and robbed? Packages getting stolen from his front porch? His wife getting harassed and terrified by drugged-out schizos, while unable to so much as carry a handgun for her own defense? Those victimize the common man and so the common man cares about them.
Saying this is a right-wing impulse is, I think, precisely what put Trump in office. Twice. The democrats were largely subverted by progressives and ceded this monopoly on the idea of public order to the republicans. Why is it such a stretch to say that yes, we believe that the common man should be protected from wage theft or pollution, and also we believe that he should be protected from violent or criminal impulses?
The reality of the situation is that while yes, insider trading or other white-collar crime has an impact on the average American, it's much less tangible. And ultimately, it's less emotionally harmful and poses no risk of violence. Please don't mistake me; we should strongly punish both. But it's responses like this to ordinary people showing up to city hall meetings or political fora and saying, "What about all this crime that's happening to me?" It's these responses, in the vein of, "Why would we care when there are Madoffs to catch?" that turn people away from the left.
You may be right about this.
But if you zoom out, how is it that we are at a moment in civilization with unprecedented wealth, unprecedented technology, unprecedented nutrition, unprecedented medical care, unprecedented education and access to information, and yet politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime?
Right-wing impulse thinking is generally what is most desirable to people who have already fully "made it" financially want -- things like a country club atmosphere (no visible poverty or crime), a suburban style layout (private over public transit, low density housing, private security, etc.)
For most people, such an arrangement is suboptimal. Higher density housing is much less expensive and safer, public transit is much more efficient, economic heterogeneity an opportunity for economic interaction and small business creation, etc.
In the US people have been told they need to live in the suburbs and have a big mortgage on a massive property (often 1000+ square feet and one bathroom per person) to escape the dangers of urban crime. They often purchase expensive cars and spend 2-3 hours per day commuting to an office, tying up most of their leisure time.
This of course reduces government revenue in urban, higher density areas, which does lead to increased crime. But you can see how it's a cycle perpetuated by right-wing impulse style thinking. Many Americans are already very bought into this mentality with respect to housing, but they do not realize the extent to which it shapes other aspects of their worldview.
To a significant extent, the financial allocations of people across the US for many decades is invested in perpetuating suburban property values and social values (fear of urban density, fear of economic diversity, fear of crime, etc.).
People like Garry Tan with $100M net worth should be the ones focusing on bringing the fruits of our modern civilization to more people, not calling for them to be punished. It's a bad look and it has the same effect as Trump's rallying cry against the weakest -- it promotes the narrative that suburban, country club isolation from economic diversity is humane and desirable, and it pretends that rather than living in times of unprecedented abundance, we face such scarcity that we should abandon our empathy for the weakest among us. I'm not sure how things could get more ugly.
I don't think wanting a safe neighborhood clean of debris and crime is necessarily "right-wing", and this is precisely my point. A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth, got to know them and their parents well. One of the primary complaints their parents had was the fact that "justice" initiatives and policing changes had increased the level of crime in bad neighborhoods which victimized them. They weren't any less hurt than the suburbanites who wanted to avoid their cars getting burgled. They weren't less-affected because they didn't live in 1000+sqft houses commuting an hour each way.
I don't think crime exists because of low revenues in inner cities. Everything I know about American history shows it flowed the opposite way: people expanded because they didn't want to be around crime and other inconveniences of living close into cities; that crime didn't show up because people expanded.
I don't think Tan wants to punish people intrinsically, I think he wants to focus on the 99% of people who are victimized by crime rather than the 1% who commit it. This isn't really about country-club isolation, it's just as much, maybe more, about people living in cities being able to live in peace. Without feces on the streets, without fear of property or violent crime.
Social spending on poor people predisposed to these types of crime has only gone up over the past decades. Crime hasn't magically fallen in proportion with that spending. This suggests that it's not the silver bullet for solving this problem. Additionally, SF has spent huge amounts of money on "housing-first" policies which have broadly failed because they don't recognize that a large number of the homeless aren't really that willing to seek treatment or to go to inpatient psych care where they belong.
And lastly, the middle class is still the bulk of America. Telling them that they must sacrifice their dreams of raising a family in peace, consign themselves and their families to petty crime so Fred Junkie can buy fent, accept their wives and daughters won't feel safe being out past dark, is just a non-starter. I consider it deeply immoral, but politically, it's simply not expedient. No party that holds up this as its moral paradigm can be expected to win.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and give major credit to you for being personally and directly involved. Much respect.
People wanting to be able to live in a safe environment free from violence and coercion is the essence of the social contract. We create institutional structures like a judicial system and penal system in an attempt to create fair systems that create the desired incentives for all.
There are certainly a small number of people who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse challenges that render them incapable of participating in the social contract in the same way as other people. Society has replaced private charity with state welfare which also includes care for the elderly, for orphans, etc.
I think the defining characteristic of a properly functioning social contract is that it provides an incentive for everyone to cooperate and to preserve the status quo. SF is at a disadvantage because of how badly other cities treat the underserved. I've heard stories even about private hospitals in SF putting very ill homeless patients in a taxi and sending them to the public hospital (in violation of a multitude of laws and ethical standards), and a similar scenario exists with other cities that are less hospitable to the have nots.
Thus SF has become a sanctuary city. Much like a bird sanctuary that offers habitat to beings that would otherwise starve or die off, SF provides habitat for humans who simply would not have anywhere to go.
In the past we've had laws that criminalize drugs and prevent many modes of treatment, creating a drug epidemic in the US far worse than exists in places that provide care without moral judgment. But in the US moral judgment is insatiable and sells politically.
That's why I am trying to help identify what I call the "right-wing impulse", the idea of the downtrodden as the political "other" that must be feared and stopped. While any kind of dehumanization rhetoric is harmful and cuts of empathy and critical thought, dehumanization targeting the weakest in society has been strongly on the rise in the US in recent years.
In my view, the post-911 response of "see something, say something" and widespread, state sponsored suspicion of brown people fueled what would eventually become Trump's anti-immigrant (fundamentally anti-brown) movement. The US Government spent billions on advertising telling us to fear or neighbors.
The right wing impulse is what the public is trained to have by that kind of advertising. The idea that we should be suspicious, fearful, and that policing and surveillance is the solution.
Much like an abundant apple orchard will attract all kinds of species with the smell of blossoms and fruit, an abundant society will attract people from all walks of life. It will give hope to those who are too damaged to be contributors to society and whose role it is to receive charity. I think we need to change our impulse response from the right-wing one to the realization that it is our good fortune that makes our cities places where those with no hope go to find hope.
This is really hard to do nowadays, legally speaking. The changes that made it so are entirely understandable: after reports of the incredible institutional abuse of the mentally ill, after the age of lobotomies being the craze, it's no wonder everyone agreed we were due for a change. But the pendulum swung too far, and this is helpful neither for the homeless nor for those who live near them. Psych hospitals are objectively not great and we should improve them. But living out on the street, hopelessly addicted or mentally ill with no treatment, isn't really better. I'm afraid we've let the perfect become the enemy of the good, let the valid conclusion that state psych wards are not nice places blind us to the streets being worse for at least some people.
This doesn't apply to those who are legitimately just down on their luck, obviously; for them, housing-first policies can work much better.
No arguments with you that state-sponsored suspicion is bad. That said, Trump just won all four counties in the Rio Grande Valley, an extremely Latino-dominant area that was a democratic stronghold. He's consistently performing better than any other republican in my lifetime amongst many minority groups (though with a heavy bias towards men), so he must be tapping into something more than anti-brown.
I see what you're saying about this being at some level a right-wing impulse, and distrust of the other is much more right-wing versus the classical left-wing openness. I just don't know that you will ever get people to be substantially open to those whom they see as victimizing them: this moves past the right-leaning "I don't like this other" to the fairly neutral "I don't like this person who is harming me." If I am mugged, my empathy for that person is zero. Maybe it should be different, and that may soften with time, but it's extremely hard to give people sermons on why they should really feel for the guy who just took their wallets at knifepoint.
All that said I agree with most of the issues you've identified. I'm a big fan of localism, moving things to smaller governance areas, because that does seem to resolve many of the scaling issues of democracy. My hope is that helps us apply empathy more consistently where it's deserved: it's much easier for me to look at folks in my city whom I know and figure out how to help them out than it is to do this for folks up in Washington, or over in South Carolina, or wherever.
The other side of this is crime committed by people besides the homeless. I think for that, you'll seldom get much sympathy, and that's incredibly unlikely to change. This is because most of us who are still sympathetic to the homeless are creating an exception to our dislike of people who wrong us, not defaulting to empathy as our first response. I'm not sure how realistically this is fixable. As much as government rhetoric doesn't help, most people get pissed when someone cuts them off in traffic. They don't think, "Wow, I bet that person is having a bad day, or has somewhere to be." And there's no government rhetoric telling them to flip that guy the bird.
No such policy exists. There was a brief experiment with such a policy, years ago, and it was terminated early when it proved unworkable.
It is true that most, especially high-controversy, political discussion is outside of what the community here views as simultaneously being intellectually stimulating and something that is likely to be discussed without descending into an emotion-driven flamewar with of hyperbole, lies,and people talking past each other that has no value. And, fairly frequently, the controversial political topics that don't die right away to community moderation reinforce this point.
The strengths HN has a forum on some issues over places loke Twitter or Reddit or even yelling at people on a street corner simply are not there for many political controversies.
Is there, in fact, significant controversy over it?
Then, yes, it is controversial.
> I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law
I don't think most people have any idea what “british common law” is, much less have a particular opinion about what it has to say about American immigration policy. And, AFAICT, British Common Law at the point it was last relevant to American law, that is, at the time of US independence, was somewhat unsettled on the matter, with leading scholars disagreeing over whether the power of removal was purely discretionary, required stating good cause, or might be subject to more stringent limits as to justification for certain aliens, see, e.g., the discussion at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...
This is often incorrectly cited as the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, but EO 9066, under which the exclusion, and subsequent forced relocation of, Americans of Japanese descent from large swathes of the country, and some others, occurred does not cite as authority and was not tied to the Alien Enemies Act (which, by its own terms, only applies to aliens, not citizens.)
There were invocations of the Alien Enemies Act in the earlier proclamations of Dec. 7 and Dec. 8, 1941, but the exclusions and forced relocation under military authority under EO 9066 was broader and not based on the Alien Enemies Act.
Also FWIW Reagan's apology was addressed both to citizen and non-citizen victims of the camps.
I think whether or not, and how, it was tied to the Alien Enemies Act is more than a little relevant to considering what purpose it can serve in discussing the Alien Enemies Act.
How we view the regret over the camps is, outside of that, mostly irrelevant to the context in which the issue was raised in this discussion.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The Japanese internment camps held both citizens and non-citizens. The camp in El Salvador currently holds mostly non-citizens but Trump issued a statement where he expressed enthusiasm for putting "home growns" in the camp as well. It is speculated that "home growns" refers to US citizens.
Obviously EO 9066 was necessary because the alien enemies act wasn't sufficient to intern citizens, and both citizens and non-citizens were put in the camps. Trump's comment about "home growns" suggests that he may issue a similar order, which in my view makes the two situations quite analogous with respect to the principles of law involved in taking people into custody without trial.
We are missing out on truly hilarious insights, when you present professionals from one discipline wiht topics from another. A biologist might judge the fitness of the economy by fertility and average life span.
Not sure what the solution to the riddle is but I suspect walled gardens are the problem. How to code a "bring your own community everywhere" I have no idea.
However, political discussions seem to not even devolve from a higher standard, but remain at the most infantile level of emotional outbursts. Oppiniated without interest in analysis. Well... likely exaggerating, but anyway. (perhaps my bias)
So it's best proposed to a community who is used to suppress low quality posts (more than others).
> However, political discussions seem
to require extra care at this stage.
By the way, and importantly, I would not call this submission a political matter, because it is not a "how to administer the State" matter (let alone partisanship): as I stated in the introductory post, I see these events as emerging changes in the state of the World and its dynamics, that require assessment from an attentive public.
I have already made a statement in my introductory post on why I decided to submit this.