Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    20167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Muschamp is still going to drop Simmons into coverage quite a bit. Pretty core part of the defense (and really any modern defense).
  2. Just like with dildos, anything can be an alternate convention if you're brave enough. --Honest Abe
  3. Now I think you're just gas lighting us. I've said that multiple times in this thread and you've dismissed it as inappropriate. I've suggested that you're conflating discussion in this thread regarding the root cause of the problem with the discussion that would occur during the empathetic conversation. It is very clear you're doing that. It is also very clear that you're not being honest here because you very much have spent your time in this thread attempting to validate their feelings and telling us they must be right.
  4. I don't think you know what you mean with these words. Part of this is just a limitation of the English language. But what does it mean to "accept the reality of another person's experience and view of the world"? Like, actually play out the conversation, because I think you're reading into everyone's posts something that isn't there. Just because we are discussing the actual problems and solutions here in this thread, doesn't mean we are saying that the empathetic conversation also includes discussion. Those are two separate things, which I've tried to make clear to you repeatedly. The entire fucking thread my man. That's all you've been doing in response to my posts.
  5. I agree with this, but I'm confused. You've spent most the thread yelling at people for suggesting this exact problem and solution. Are we allowed to discuss the actual problem or not?
  6. You haven't read any of those cases. I know you haven't because this one: Roy v. Los Angeles County 2:12-cv-09012 (C.D. Cal.) | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, involving a man detained for 80+ days is literally part of the Gonzalez case I gave to you. It was also provided to you earlier in the thread. You've refused to engage this topic honestly. You've had to lie and reframe my concern as merely being about people jailed for months or weeks. I've been very clear that my concern is about lack of due process and procedural safeguards and a process that is ripe for abuse. Unconstitutional detention of any length is a problem. As the cases show, that occurs regularly with detainers precisely because the process is flawed. You've had to lie and reframe everyone else's argument as not wanting this man to be deported. No one has said that. No one in this thread has indicated they care if ICE had deported him some time in the past. The question asked was WHY this person was released from a hold. The answer, as I and others have given you, is that detainers are routinely ignored because (1) they are not mandatory, (2) state and local authorities have been found liable for violation of constitutional rights when they comply with the ICE request, and (3) it the state and local authorities are the hook for the bill when ICE never bothers to pick the person up. All of this is discussed in excruciating detail in the cases I provided you. The cases also discuss how ICE started automating the detained process 20-years ago, going from an infrequently used tool to one where requests are generated automatically based upon some simple database look ups. A single error your location of birth in a database anywhere can you get you labeled as a potential illegal immigrant subject to an ICE hold. No one has to actually know or have done the slightest bit of checking to confirm whether or not you're a citizen. We know that is the case because it has a literally happened and ICE has admitted it has happened. If ICE wants people detained, there is an actual legal route to make that happen rooted in actual law. It did not do that here. Maybe it should have. Instead it choose to do this thing that it has no express authority to do and makes the local governments pay for the bill when ICE routinely fucks up (under the generous interpretation that these are mistakes). Answer the question: why is it unfair to ask ICE to use the process that is actually in the law? Why aren't you mad at ICE for not doing that? For not picking this person up earlier? Why is your anger directed solely at local law enforcement that was actually following the law so that people weren't held without probable cause? I agree with you one point: this process could be tweaked and safeguards implemented. That would require an actual law be passed that would pass constitutional muster. So why not do that? Why do you insist that ICE must have this power that is nowhere in the law? Why do you insist that local authorities have to comply with a thing that has no basis in law and protections of due process? Why don't you do this, admit you're wrong. Admit you don't know what you're talking about, that you don't understand the law or due process, and apologize to me . Maybe then you'll restore some of the respect I've lost for you over the last couple of days. Maybe you don't care. But I think a past version of you would have.
  7. My sweet summer child, let me introduce you to administrative law and process that accompanies its creation. Yes, even the executive branch has to jump through hoops in order to make regulations implementing a law. More importantly, the law has to actually authorize the executive's actions. 48-hour detainers are, per the implementing regulation, voluntary requests to state and local authorities. Congress has not authorized the executive branch to actually detain someone without probable cause for removal, nor could it do so constitutionally. A voluntary request is not itself unconstitutional (actually, it can be without probable cause, see below). But agreeing to comply with one absolutely can be. And multiple courts have found constitutional violations when complying with such detainers and the attendant liability that goes with them. That is precisely why you have settlements. And that's why local authorities don't comply with them. Because when they listen to feds and don't have probable cause to detain someone, it is locals that are liable for the damages. Some cases for you to read since you apparently think there are no cases and no problem: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/12-3991/12-3991-2014-03-04.html (compliance with detainers aren't compulsory, and will not protect local authority from liability for complying with the detainer in violation of constitutional rights) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55175/20-55175-2020-09-11.html (where the settlement came from, certified classes related to unconstitutional enforcement of detainers) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/14-1425/14-1425-2015-07-17.html (4th amendment requires probable cause to issue a detainer, no qualified immunity) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10567130403344047032&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (county violated 4th amendment by complying with detainer request without probable cause) There are plenty more. What is disturbing is how many of these involve actual citizens being detained. In short, detainer requests are bullshit. They have been issued in mass, bullshit fashion (read the full gonzalez opinion for a taste of that). They have been issued against citizens. People's rights have been violated. Any local authority complying with one without having independently satisfied itself that probably cause exists risks substantial liability. But sure, you think there is no problem so let's just have all local authorities lock anyone up that ICE asks, due process and facts be damned.
  8. 1) you think wrong. I'm not. 2) Twice already posted that and you skipped over it while you were busy attacking strawmen 3) I actually don't give a shit if it is happening regularly at all. If it happens one time, it is bad. And if the process is subject to easy abuse, it is bad. If the process is not rooted in, you know, laws, it is bad. This is all of those things. It is just a practice ICE decided it could do and everyone went along with it. 4) you still refuse to answer my question. Why not make the government do the thing the law actually says it needs to do? Why exactly do we need to let ICE just make up its own rules? If you want a 48 hour hold law, pass one. Doesn't seem that unreasonable, does it?
  9. Borderline?
  10. If we want to make that an official thing with all due process protections associated with it, I'd be perfectly fine with it too. But it isn't just 48 hours. And never has been. It is whatever time frame they want, however many times they want it. Just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it was ever proper. It is a dangerous process without any procedural safeguards. When people are being detained for months at a time based upon these hold requests, you're god damn right I'm going to sound an alarm bell. There is a simple, established procedure for someone to be legally held pending deportation. It provides some level of assurance that the government has sufficient information to justify the detention, striking that constitutional balance between protecting rights and the concerns of the state Why don't we make the government follow that rather than let it do whatever the fuck it wants because it is easier?
  11. They have always been a problem. Again, the reason the hold requests aren't a honored is because ICE rarely bothers to follow through. The holds just get reissued, leaving detainees in limbo without any due process, and leaving local authorities with the bill. Holds are an invention. They are made up. They mean absolutely nothing. If getting a warrant isn't a big deal, then why aren't you mad about ICE not doing that? Stop being lazy and fucking think. Please, tell me, why can't ICE just get a warrant? Why is that a problem for you?
  12. What if ICE went to the trouble of getting an actual warrant? Try to follow actual due process rather than just make shit up because it would be more convenient to disappear people? Why not try that? Why are you wasting time arguing a strawman (not wanting any deportations) to justify authoritarian bullshit?
  13. Stop being dense. I don't care if he is deported. I really truly don't. But I absolutely know people should not be forced to stay in jail because ICE requested a hold. There is absolutely zero due process associated with that. Again, you could be arrested for a traffic violation tomorrow and ICE could request you be held indefinitely. Do you think that is proper? Do you think that is due process?
  14. How on earth is that responsive? I don't give a shit if he gets deported. I don't know why they dropped the previous charges. Usually it is because, and I know this is crazy, they either didn't have sufficient evidence or the person was actually, you know, innocent. Again, your posts address a point no one is making. But if due process doesn't protect the worst among us, if doesn't protect anyone. Maybe you want to live in a country where anyone can be disappeared off the streets without process. I don't.
  15. 1) holding someone without a warrant is a violation of rights. 2) If you're a precog that can predict crime, maybe it makes sense to prejudge. We don't get to do that here in the USA. 3) Whether he should have been deported before is irrelevant here. 4) The release here despite the requested hold isn't really the result of an immigrant friendly policy. It is the result of an administrative and cost one. ICE issues these holds and then never collects. These shifts the costs of holding someone from the federal system to state and local authorities. 5) More importantly, ICE holds lack any due process protections. ICE doesn't have to prove the person is an immigrant. It doesn't have to prove they could be legally deported. You could be arrested tomorrow for a traffic violation. ICE could then request you be held pending deportation. That ICE has no legal authority to do that would be irrelevant. That ICE may never both to collect you would be irrelevant. Under your distorted and authorities view of the world, you could be disappeared to prison without any consideration by judge or jury. You may recognize where that system is "justice" is practiced. But it isn't supposed to be in the USA.
  16. That is a complete non-sequitur to the posts your responding to. Your turn to justifying authoritarian, rights infringing policies at every turn is very disturbing.
  17. I have no idea what the first part means if it doesn't mean either (1) expressing empathy but silent as to agreement or (2) accepting their causal analysis. You've been asked this very question at least a dozen times in this thread. You've refused to agree with the second sentence in bold above. Had you done so earlier, the discussion would have been much less contentious.
  18. Yeah, we have to be careful not to conflate different causal events. You can have direct discrimination in hiring practices (e.g., don't hire the black guy). You can have systemic discrimination that prevents individuals from participating but doesn't necessarily require wrongful conduct by hiring firms (e.g., black family is poorer and unable to afford education/opportunities). And you can have internalized beliefs that cause individuals to choose not to participate (e.g., nurses aren't men). The last category can be caused be a discriminatory, internalized cultural belief, but because it is internalized and by that definition self-selective, it is less clear to what extent actions to remediate are appropriate.
  19. Where did you get that he didn't read the piece? He literally talked about it in some detail, including a discussion of the publication. What counter-factual scenario are you referring to? He gave a personal example, and I thought you were all about not dismissing personal experience? It seems pretty clear you didn't actually read his posts. I'd call you a hypocrite, but I don't think the word is sufficient at this point. You owe him an apology. We'll see if you're man enough to do it. Here is his first post in the thread for reference:
  20. I think this is a great opportunity for this discussion to advance. Should we placate @sheeeit's beliefs or address them honestly? Does it help to tell him what he wants to hear or what the evidence actually is? Does empathizing with his plight require us to admit his beliefs are true?
  21. Your analogy had a built-in assumption that the prior system was merit based. It's the same flaw in the original article. My only intention was to bring it out for discussion. The truth is neither system is a pure merit-based system. The question is whether one is more desirable than the other for society in general. Further, there is an error here in conflating all methods of improving equity as operating in the same manner. Some of them may operate by modifying the scoring (e.g., your testing scores example). Others may operate by providing equipment or training. I think the former are going to seem inherently more unfair to other competitors and are more likely to generate resentment.
  22. We know that isn't true. Plenty of studies show that if you put two applicants with the same qualifications, one with a black sounding name and one with a white sounding name, the one with the black sounding will get rejected more often.
  23. Is it? The suggestion is that the initial framework before was entirely skill/merit based. Since we know that isn't true, the analogy is flawed. It's more like they were playing a game of golf where the white guys had a few strokes handicap or maybe got to skip the first few holes. They also may have had better clubs, a caddy, and have played the course previously. The rules changed to remove the handicap and give everyone else slightly more comparable equipment.
  24. You've definitely said that. The question is whether the evidence actually shows it. I'm sure it has happened in particular companies and maybe even in particular industries. And that sucks. As I said in my first posts in this thread, a rush to change can also lead to an outsized and immediate impact. I think poorly implemented policies or ones that had a goal of making significant changes to the diversity of a company in short time frame (e.g., a couple of years) had negative impact on certain groups of workers. But the primary driver of the resentment in the original article appears to be the belief that prior to DEI policies becoming mainstream, the workplace was more fair and meritocracy based. That isn't a call for fair treatment. It is a call for the return of treatment that more favored white males. What is true is that the ones who lost some of the privileges attached with being a white male weren't those that most benefitted from them. And from a certain angle that can be seen as an unfair punishment. It would be fairer to take from those that reaped the awards of privileged, and I've repeatedly advocated that in this thread (despite your insistence that I don't care and want to abandon these people). I have no idea why you derisively dismissed this post, but it is an excellent response that captures both the need for empathy but also why we can't just feed negative beliefs that may not be based in fact.
×
×
  • Create New...