You can't refuse to be scanned by ICE's facial recognition app, DHS document say

Per thousands of videos on social media, it doesn’t matter what your rights are anymore, if you try to ask for them ICE will just become even more sadistic and violent, and the DOJ/government will refuse to cooperate in bringing them to justice for denying you your rights- you have no rights or recourse anymore even as a citizen. Moreover, the agents are masked and refuse to self identify as the law requires so you will never be able to say who violated your rights- they are hiding their identities because they are committing crimes. They are not police that follow laws, they are state sponsored white supremacist terrorists.

Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is following the law.

But of course fed-cops were never seriously prowling neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is a Whole Foods so nobody on HN cared until now.

XD any way to clobber cellular data and wifi connection within six feet of contact?

Most of Federal law enforcement except for those that patrol certain, usually sharply defined (but see border patrol for a big exception) areas historically has been in one of two modes interacting: either gathering information (this includes serving a search warrant), or arresting based on an existing arrest warrant, usually from a felony indictment. In the former case, something really out of ordinary has to happen to turn it into an arrest in that interaction (though that doesn't mean you wont be indicted and arrested based on it) and in the latter nothing is likely to deter arrest.

Border patrol specifically is wildly different, looking for people who are suspected of being subject to their jurisdiction without a specific indictment, detaining with in practice, if not in law, a much lower standard of suspicion than applies usually, and then generally having those detained subject to process that is almost entirely within executive branch “courts” with consequences as severe as criminal process but much lower protections than criminal process (where literal toddlers defend themselves in “court" against government lawyers.)

The current “immigration” crackdown, while ICE (which historically has worked more like a regular federal law enforcement agency despite its detainees often flowing into the executive immigration system and not the criminal justice system) has been the public face of it is effectively applying the Border Patrol culture/approach far more broadly (which is also why, in frustration with the “inadequate” results so far ICE middle leadership is being purged and replaced with Border Patrol personnel.)

I agree with all that generally.

There's real serious questions about what rights people have when being accused of non-criminal infractions and to what degree the punishments can overlap that people ought to be asking here.

But nobody on HN wants to ask these questions because all the things HN wants strictly regulated are done so using the same legal theories and doctrines and precedents.

It's a bit worse now [1] with Trump in lead.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo

I agree.

Are you aware that HN is not of a single mind?

Sure you can jam all cellular frequencies. Not exactly legal but certainly possible.

Some fedcops were always like this, but we can look back at previous administrations for invalid apprehensions of US citizens to see that the numbers used to be much lower over the last several decades.

"Fewer people cared when this was an objectively much smaller problem" is not the clever observation you seem to think it is, even with the weird Whole Foods snipe.

You can say that about any group. Sure there's a long tail of rare people who can do better but averages and means will be what they are.

The tech industry is full of fine software developers. Not sure they'd make great public policy.

I'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now.

Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.

that's a great talk - from the cited executive order:

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

Oh really?

I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes.

It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate.

Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.

Have you ever read the guidelines around here?

Here's some wisdom for you:

"The world is what you make of it" can be interpreted multiple ways.

The issue right now is that DHS are federal police not subject to any vehicle for redress of wrongs unless they break state law and are identified for criminal offenses that lose QI, but there is no 42 USC § 1983-like law for bringing civil rights violations claims against them. Civilly, they're effectively "samurai" who can do whatever they want because the courts, legislature, and executive branches are all on their side.

Yes, I have. So you're conceding my point then? Because why else would you drag the conversation towards "you're making your point with poor manners"?

Other than the fact that they're locking people up instead of levying ruinous fines how's this different from any other enforcer working on behalf of the a federal (or state) administrative bureaucracy?

The road to hell wasn't paved in a day.

Absolutely insane Orwellian doublespeak... being against fascism, what our country fought for in WWII, is now "terrorism" and equal rights regardless of skin color, as guaranteed by the US constitution is now "race extremism."

Playing edgelord isn't going to save you. A difference in scale is a difference in degree. When law enforcement overran their mandate, we had a shot at identifying their victims, saying their names, demanding justice, and possibly righting some wrongs in the the smallest step. When deputized white supremacist militias mass disappear people without any sort of legal process or documentation besides incrementing a counter for their bonus from King Krasnov, we likely won't even know all of their names.

State governors need to start deploying their national guards to keep law and order versus these masked gangs of lawless thugs, period.

In the guidelines there is an emphasis on curious debate. Also about political things, but those tend to be more controversial, so are avoided by default.

Do you understand that point? Political debate is discouraged here by design.

So the reason you won't find so much about this concrete ICE issue is simply that this type of debate is not welcome in general and does not say anything about "HN" communities position.

Second thing is, there is no such thing as "HN mind".

You can extrapolate some averages, but .. I for example ain't even from the US.

"opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation"

And from radical anarcho anarchists to radical communists, I have read all sorts of opinions here.

Lastly, the guidelines strongly advice against debating in a "engaged mind". Meaning, you sound a bit emotional and aggressive. I perceive that as attacking .. and my default mode would answer in a different way and we would be in a flamewar situation. (Despite we likely agree on the political side of things here)

If you can't tell the difference between a fine that you can go to court over and having masked thugs point guns at you, throw a bag over your head, and disappear you without due process, I don't think we are going to find a lot of common ground.

Enough of a difference in degree is a difference in kind.

The federal government will happily take command of those deployments. Unlike a lot of the other illegal shit that they are doing, that is a power that they legally have.

In coordination with the Governor, right?

Wrong. He will federalize them.

Unlawfully then.

1. It's not entirely unlawful. This is a power that he has. This has been done in the past - multiple times without the consent of the governors in question. [1]

2. Because it's not clearly and entirely and immediately unlawful, and would take a court to rule about it (the courts are also fucked - SCOTUS recently ruled that lower courts are expected to defer to whatever batshit version of reality the government's lawyers are peddling) people in the chain of command can't clearly tell if the orders they are receiving are obviously illegal, and don't have good grounds to disobey them.

3. Also, that's, like, the way to civil war.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine - When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.[4]

re (2) then state governors need to start with auditing the chains of command, to make sure they are still loyal to the United States Constitution and won't be following anti-American orders from the anti-Constitutional fascists.

re (1) then it's time to start standing up state laws that assert sovereignty, and legal supremacy over autocratic dictats from the out of control federal executive / judiciary.

re (3) yes, that's where we basically are. Red state (un)patriot militias hopped up on social media rah-rah juice about how they've been wronged, being sent into blue states and let loose to attack citizens. If our American ideal of Constitutionally-limited government is going to endure, then states need to start picking up the slack for the governance being overtly shirked by the federal anarcho-tyranny.

I don't like any of it and the dice are stacked against us, but the sooner we acknowledge the reality the better we can defend against the all-too-plausible possibility of our country going up the smokestacks of Trumpist big tech fascism.

> re (2) then state governors need to start with auditing the chains of command, to make sure they are still loyal to the United States Constitution and won't be following anti-American orders from the anti-Constitutional fascists.

1. What makes you think they don't?

2. There's a trick to it. It's difficult to conclusively tell if an order is unlawful, and there will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses one that isn't. And at the rate the current court rulings are going, dropping a fucking nuclear bomb on Ohio may be found to be constitutional and lawful.

> it's time to start standing up state laws that assert sovereignty

Good luck asserting sovereignty without an army. See point #2.

> yes, that's where we basically are

If that's the only way out of it, we've already lost.

> there will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses one that isn't.

There will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses even one that is. It's going to take a long time - years - before they are vindicated, but the punishment is going to start immediately.

In the Little Rock case, the governor was using the National Guard to defy a Supreme Court order. That gives the president more leeway than he would have if the situation was just "no, the governor doesn't want the National Guard here".

It might be interesting in and of itself to force to Supreme Council to go on record with hard decisions about these things. The impression I've gotten is that they've delayed issuing any actual rulings, just lots of non-binding preliminary "advice" to lower courts. I don't know if this is them trying to politically hedge so they can unwind if the fascist takeover ultimately fails, or whether they anticipate real elections putting Democrats back in power and they want to be able to put the brakes on the autocratic executive then, or what.

> or whether they anticipate real elections putting Democrats back in power and they want to be able to put the brakes on the autocratic executive then, or what.

That's the more likely hedge. Their skin won't be in the fire in the case of the first one.