Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Aside from being unlikely to be successful in this case, I'm not exactly clear on why it would be morally wrong to liberate a concentration camp. I had a distant cousin who died doing exactly that in WWII, and I don't recall anyone ever questioning whether he had been perhaps an evil terrorist or something. There's a huge difference to me between violence in defense of the powerless, and violence targeted at them. This man died, he didn't kill anyone. And he died in defense of people who could not defend themselves. What is remotely evil about that?

To a Nazi? Anyone attacking their concentration camps.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Aside from being unlikely to be successful in this case, I'm not exactly clear on why it would be morally wrong to liberate a concentration camp. I had a distant cousin who died doing exactly that in WWII, and I don't recall anyone ever questioning whether he had been perhaps an evil terrorist or something. There's a huge difference to me between violence in defense of the powerless, and violence targeted at them. This man died, he didn't kill anyone. And he died in defense of people who could not defend themselves. What is remotely evil about that?

Attacking police officers isn't good. Nor is trying to set a detention centre ablaze. Who do you think would be hurt if the centre went up in flames? Wouldn't it include the detained? What makes you think his attack would only harm the powerful?

 

[Playball40]

Hey asshole. It's NOT ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM. It IS however, illegal to detain someone without due process. Your analogy falls flat since seeking asylum is NOT illegal.

Aside from being unlikely to be successful in this case, I'm not exactly clear on why it would be morally wrong to liberate a concentration camp. I had a distant cousin who died doing exactly that in WWII, and I don't recall anyone ever questioning whether he had been perhaps an evil terrorist or something. There's a huge difference to me between violence in defense of the powerless, and violence targeted at them. This man died, he didn't kill anyone. And he died in defense of people who could not defend themselves. What is remotely evil about that?

Because they are NOT concentration camps. That is propaganda. Like it's been said numerous times, these immigrants had a choice to come here or not. They chose to come here, which is a criminal offense. No cop picks up a drunk driver and says, "Oh you have a kid? Sorry I'll let you go. We can't separate a parent from his child."

 

[Politesse]

I don't support the "absolute suspension of human rights" for these applicants, so no you don't need to explain that to me. Please read my post again. II also specifically said these people should not be mistreated or have their families separated. So don't go there.

No one is confused about whose side you are on, whose arguments you always want to "compromise" with, and whose you are always willing to critique. Why pretend?

If you agree that there is a legitimate concern about letting people freely wander the country with no visa and no proper vetting...

I don't. This is our current policy, and it hasn't caused any problems.

What do you suggest as the solution when so many apply as to overwhelm the ability to process the applications swiftly?

Stop racially profiling applicants, and putting pointless levels of obfuscation and delay in processing the applications of indigenous people that you would never put a European through.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, this guy was a reckless piece of shit. Molotov cocktails are not the answer.

The only way to accomplish an ethical goal here would require a much larger force armed with rifles, armored vehicles, heavy weapons, and coordination with those held unlawfully in custody to limit casualties.

 

[Derec]

and coordination with those held unlawfully in custody

How do you coordinate with nobody?

 

[Derec]

Hey asshole. It's NOT ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.

Again, this asylum seeking of 100,000s of people who are not being persecuted in their countries is fraudulent.

 

[Gun Nut]

Hey asshole. It's NOT ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.

Again, this asylum seeking of 100,000s of people who are not being persecuted in their countries is fraudulent.

Same deal with itemized tax deductions... they are all bullshit and everyone that does not take the standard deduction on their income taxes should be round up and deported.

 

[Politesse]

Hey asshole. It's NOT ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.

Again, this asylum seeking of 100,000s of people who are not being persecuted in their countries is fraudulent.

So review and deny their claim. If they then insist on staying, they will then have committed a crime. I still don't believe that kidnapping is an appropriate punishment for what is essentially a crime of missing paperwork. If a family must be deported, deport them together. Detaining them at any point, let alone for a long period of time, is unnecessary. Stealing and mistreating children is never an appropriate form of punishment.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

*sigh*

In fiscal year 2018, Department of Justice (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application. When families and unaccompanied children have access to legal representation, the rate of compliance with immigration court obligations is nearly 98 percent.
...
ANALYSES OF GOVERNMENT STATISTICS CONFIRM:

92 percent of individuals who filed asylum claims attended their court hearings between fiscal years 2013 and 2017

According to DOJ statistics, between 2013 and 2017, 92 percent of asylum seekers appeared in court to receive a final decision on their claims. In FY 2018, 89.4 percent of those who applied for asylum complied with their court hearing obligations. Out of 66,592 final asylum decisions, 7,072 denials were the result of the asylum seeker failing to appear in court.​

Asylum seekers released from detention to pursue their claims attend immigration court hearings nearly 100 percent of the time

Government figures made available through the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) asylum decision tracking tool show near 100 percent appearance rates for asylum seekers released from immigration detention. Out of 10,427 decisions in fiscal year 2018 for released asylum seekers, only 160 received removal orders because they missed a court hearing—resulting in a 98.5 percent court hearing compliance rate.​

98 percent of mothers with children who were represented by legal counsel complied with court hearing obligations

As of May 2018, when data analyzed by TRAC was most recently updated, mothers who had passed a credible fear interview and were represented by counsel attended their immigration court hearings over 97.5 percent of the time for cases initiated between 2014 and April 2017. TRAC’s data shows that 36 percent of families went unrepresented in immigration court. While overall apprehensions along the southern border are the lowest in decades, families continue to make up a significant proportion of those crossing the border and seeking admission at ports of entry to request asylum.​

In a 15-year study, 92 percent of asylum-seeking families who were released from immigration detention attended all immigration court hearings

A 2018 study published by the American Immigration Council found that, between 2001 and 2016, 92 percent of asylum-seeking families who were released from immigration detention had complied with all immigration court hearing obligations at the conclusion of those proceedings. Further, 96 percent of families with still pending asylum cases who were released from immigration detention attended their hearings.​

98.8 percent of children with legal counsel showed up for their court hearings in 2018

TRAC data shows that 98.1 percent of unaccompanied minors who were represented by legal counsel and whose cases began between 2014 and 2017 complied with their court hearing obligations. Of the total number of unaccompanied children who filed cases during this time, however, 40 percent were not represented by counsel.​

The rate of missed hearings for individuals who passed a credible fear interview has dropped by nearly 25 percent since 2012

Data released by DOJ show that the percentage of individuals who passed a credible fear interview but failed to appear for court has declined significantly in recent years. The rate fell by 24 percent from a high of 41.6 percent in fiscal year 2012 (2,887 removal orders out of 6,935 cases completed) to 31.8 percent in 2018 (10,859 orders out of 34,158 case decisions). This means that in 2018, nearly 70 percent of individuals who were placed into immigration court proceedings after passing a credible fear interview appeared in court as required.​

In absentia rates often reflect overlooked needs of asylum seekers

Immigration judges may issue a removal order in absentia when an individual in immigration proceedings misses a hearing, if the government provides clear and convincing evidence that the individual received written notice of the hearing. However, Human Rights First and CLINIC have documented reasons why some asylum seekers miss their court hearings, including that:

• Immigration agencies fail to provide adequate, language-appropriate information related to appearance and supervision requirements, as well as the legal consequences of the failure to attend hearings;
• The government provides incorrect information regarding the time, date, or location of the hearing;
• Multi-year delays in filing notices to appear with the immigration court and in the scheduling of hearings can lead to inadvertent failures to appear;
• Medical issues such as trauma or cognitive disabilities prevent individuals from attending;
• Asylum seekers confuse immigration court hearings with ICE check-ins because ICE does not inform asylum seekers that check-ins are separate and distinct from court obligations nor does it inform asylum seekers about court obligations at check-ins;
• Asylum seekers believe they must have an attorney present to appear in court because ICE does not inform them of court procedures; and
• Asylum seekers are given immigration court hearings in different states without explanation of the process for correcting such errors.
• While an individual may appeal an in absentia removal order if he or she can demonstrate that the government failed to providing notice of the hearing or supplied incorrect information, many asylum seekers are not aware of this right or of the process for filing an appeal, particularly where unrepresented.

The presumption that asylum seekers who do not attend court hearings lack legitimate claims for protection is erroneous. That conclusion obscures the range of factors that lead some asylum seekers to miss their immigration court proceedings or even fail to file an asylum application. Indeed, a federal district court has held that the failure of the Department of Homeland Security to notify asylum seekers who have passed a credible fear screening of the obligation to file an asylum application within the one-year deadline violates the immigration laws and due process rights under the Constitution.

 

[Derec]

So review and deny their claim.

And in the meantime they get what they want - they live in the US and have opportunity to make some anchor babies.
Once illegals live in US for years, it is extremely difficult to remove them. Just look at the opposition to these ICE raids.

Detaining them at any point, let alone for a long period of time, is unnecessary. Stealing and mistreating children is never an appropriate form of punishment.

Then let them wait in Mexico.

 

[Trausti]

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

Alexander Hamilton

 

[Jarhyn]

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

Alexander Hamilton

So what? Alexander Hamilton lived over 200 years ago, in days long before a vast majority of modern philosophy ever existed. He was intelligent for his day and age, but you are commiting a genetic fallacy as deep as the ones committed by Half-Life. Just because it was said by someone generally respectable doesn't make the statement respectable. This statement is full of rank xenophobic bullshit as one might expect from someone who waffled on slavery, among other things.

 

[RavenSky]

[None were imprisoned and tortured while their case was considered, nor permanently separated from their family. Because applying for citizenship is not a crime.

Absolutely not a crime. But concern over walking in without a visa or any proper vetting is a legitimate concern and not mere racism.

Do you have the slightest clue as to how asylum requests are actually supposed to be handled in the United States? I think not, else you wouldn't be saying ignorant Faux-News-like nonsense like "walking in without a visa or any proper vetting".

 

[RavenSky]

Hey asshole. It's NOT ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.

Again, this asylum seeking of 100,000s of people who are not being persecuted in their countries is fraudulent.

Again... you are full of shit. Until their asylum applications are processed and heard, there is not a single one of them that is "fraudulent", and even those that may eventually be denied are not necessarily "fraudulent" - just don't meet the threshold.

 

[RavenSky]

So review and deny their claim.

And in the meantime they get what they want - they live in the US and have opportunity to make some anchor babies.
Once illegals live in US for years, it is extremely difficult to remove them. Just look at the opposition to these ICE raids.

Detaining them at any point, let alone for a long period of time, is unnecessary. Stealing and mistreating children is never an appropriate form of punishment.

Then let them wait in Mexico.

Asylum-seekers and refugees are NOT "illegals".

Your use of the word shows your bullshit bias.

 

[Politesse]

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was an immigrant himself, who argued on the Congress floor that the new Republic ought to have a king, and whose arrangement of the department of the treasury in many ways paved the way for charnel house of the Civil War. Notes on the State of Virginia is widely recognized as pro-slavery, classist, racist propaganda even by people who in other respects like the book. Society moves on, if you let it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No one is confused about whose side you are on, whose arguments you always want to "compromise" with, and whose you are always willing to critique. Why pretend?

Meh. If you can't take me for what I write and must pretend I mean something else I didn't write you can fuck right off.

 

[Politesse]

So review and deny their claim.

And in the meantime they get what they want - they live in the US and have opportunity to make some anchor babies.

If the process weren't an onerous 15 year long legal affair much more likely to be successful if you're not doing it by the book, maybe the temptation and opportunity to hunker down while you wait would not be so strong. But I don't any motivation to hate children anyway. I really don't care what color of skin a child has, I think all children have the right to a safe and nurturing environment, such as not a detention center for instance. The amount of hate you muster toward "anchor babies" is not something I could ever in a million years muster, even if I wanted to, and I certainly don't. Those children will absolutely grow up speaking English and surrounded by American pop culture, if that's what you're so worried about, so what's the big problem?

Once illegals live in US for years, it is extremely difficult to remove them. Just look at the opposition to these ICE raids.

It is difficult, and expensive, to remove an entire population from a country no matter when you do it. We're burning billions on this effort and gaining nothing. You think these ICE assholes are volunteering their time? Will their equipment be donated? Will the resulting swamp of litigation all be pro bono? Or are you full of shit?

 

[Politesse]

No one is confused about whose side you are on, whose arguments you always want to "compromise" with, and whose you are always willing to critique. Why pretend?

Meh. If you can't take me for what I write and must pretend I mean something else I didn't write you can fuck right off.

Ah yes, focus on the part of my post that's easy to respond to.

Fine, I sincerely apologize for the unfair intimation that you are an unwitting stooge for white nationalist propaganda.

What about the actual discussion, though?