Hacker News Reader

Comment by OkayPhysicist | Hacker News Reader

Well, a law enforcement agency that has no need to be armed at all has shot and killed at least 2 Americans, which in my book is completely and utterly unacceptable. If you asked me what the acceptable life toll was for keeping non-violent (I make that indication, because despite all the "dangerous immigrants" talk from ICE, violent acts are not under their jurisdiction. If someone commits a real crime, it becomes real law enforcement's problem. ICE, definitionally, is only needed for otherwise law-abiding non-citizens) illegal immigrants out of the United States, I'd confidently say zero.

View on HN

So your view is that government policy is subject to a heckler's veto. If a protester can place themselves between law enforcement such that they're at risk of being injured, or killed -- then, by that very fact, any such law should no longer be enforced.

OK, fair enough. By this logic, those Jan 6th protesters who placed themselves between police and buildings/crowds such that they were injured/killed/etc. by the police -- those people get to cancel a federal election. For, if we cannot have elections without people dying, then presumably there should be none?

Being responsible for protecting politicians from violent lunatics is an intrinsically violent job, thus they need to be armed.

Being responsible for telling otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants that they need to leave is not a violent job, thus they don't need to be armed.

You don't need to murder someone to remove a heckler, especially one that you have zero jurisdiction over.

> You don't need to murder someone to remove a heckler

And what if you do?

Are you saying that you cannot conceive of a situation in which a person who disagrees with immigration law would deliberately place themselves in a position in which the only way of removing them from a enforcement situation is killing them?

This is strange given the number of domestic terrorism incidents. Consider, for example, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/8-convicted-of-terrorism...

> A demonstrator who shot and wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration center

There is no case, to my knowledge, of ICE killing anyone who hasnt voluntarily placed themselves in the middle of an enforcement situation. And more so, there are many uncontroversial cases of the attempted murder of ICE officers (see, eg. the above).

The problem with your position is that it hands complete control over the existence of the immigration system to those who are willing to engage in domestic terrorism. I assume this isnt an accident, and you're well aware that "violence" here isnt "required" -- but it is caused by activists whose political project is to use violence against ICE officers.

Giving domestic terrorists a veto over government legislation is presumably not a position you wish to defend. Or if it is, be aware that quite a lot of historical domestic terrorism was right wing, and under the same principles, so it would be again.

If they're committing domestic terrorism, we have real cops for that. The FBI, local authorities, etc. ICE has an intrinsically non-violent job. We don't give DMV employees guns and a license to kill just because people ocassionally get pissed at them.

It is not a capital offense to interfere with the duties of law enforcement officer in the united states. It's a jailable offense worth up to about a year in prison unless you use a weapon. So "they were in the way" is abso-fucking-lutely not a reason to murder someone.

At no point in time did Alex Pretti nor Renee Good represent any direct danger to the ICE agents who murdered them. ICE agents killed Americans, in cold blood, because they knew they could get away with it. If I have to choose between a bunch of people quietly minding their own business who happen to be missing some paperwork, and a gang of blood thirsty hicks galavanting around the country brutalizing people, I'm going to pick the peaceful ones every time.

Alas, I've spent to much time typing out reasoned responses to a Fascist.

I mean I'm sure you're aware that Renee Good drove a car into an ICE agent, and even if for some reason you don't believe that, you cannot deny she had driven to the area of an enforcement operation in order to disrupt it. The same goes for Alex P. who was likewise on the scene of an enforcement operation. I believe in one or both cases, iirc, the illegal immigrants were engaged in child slavery.

ICE have guns because the people they are aiming to deport are often violent and have guns themselves. Apprehending a person without permission to be in the country is an inherently dangerous activity because without the use of any force at all, none would comply with the request to leave. That request has already been issued.

I don't know what you think large-scale child slavery operations are like, but you'd want the people detaining those involved to have guns I imagine. Likewise, sits of law enforcement operations are not places that you can protest -- the act of "disrupting" criminal enforcement procedures is itself a crime -- for obvious reasons. You cannot just murder someone, then every time an officer comes to arrest you, arrange for your neighbors to "protest" an arrest.

Political protest is a crime when "protestors" commit crimes. All protestors you've mentioned were committing crimes as soon as they entered an enforcement operations, that's called obstruction.

> reasoned responses to a Fascist.

You havent offered any reasons at all. You're using emotionally escalating language which justifies arbitrary violent action by people you agree with, in order to disrupt activities of the state which have a many-decades long bipartisian popular democratic mandate; and have been going on in the present form, for decades. You're seeking to justify the use of domestic terrorism to undermine the legitimacy of democratically legitimated government policies because you disagree with them.

Deporting a person to their country of origin is not a punishment. They are citizens of the country they are being returned to. At any given time 70-80% of pretty much all western states agree with a much harsher immigration enforcement that is ever actually enacted by states themselves. Mass immigration has always taken place against the democratic wishes of vast majorities of people. The removal of people without permission to be here, to the place they have permission to be, is not an attack on that person.

By emotionally white-washing acts of domestic terrorism you are creating a situation in which "protestors" are encouraged to get themselves killed in actions against the state. You do not have a hecker's veto on immigration policy, and nothing you do will give you one. The attitude you are taking here i just getting people killed LARPing matyrs for people who, in the end, are not being punished, theyre being deported.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com