Comment by tomrod
2 hours ago
I think you might be accidentally or willingly misunderstanding the context if that is your takeaway -- no one, neither immigrant nor innocent bystander, should be killed because administrative warrants are being enforced. And ICE doesn't require hundreds of individuals deployed to one place. There simply was never a reason for such a surge.
EDIT: to the dead comment below -- your comment doesn't have to meet my approval -- the comment is simply at odds with reality and is a thought terminating cliche.
Feel free to take it in a more general framing: if you don't want people you don't support, while they are in power, killing people, take time to understand why others might be upset. Not only is it your civic duty, its also part of being in society.
Is the idea that with worse technology, DHS will kill fewer people?
Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral.
TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?
What would you do instead?
Honestly? A few ideas
1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US.
2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary.
3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming.
4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."
I mean, you have an immigration policy or you don’t have one. If you have one, you need to enforce it. The unfortunate truth is that any attempt at law enforcement sometimes leads to deaths, and it doesn’t matter what you’re enforcing. The US should not have responsibility to solve all of the rest of the world’s problems to justify enforcing it’s borders.
2 replies →
[flagged]
This is false.
> Good was in her car, stopped sideways in the street, which led Ross to circle her vehicle on foot. Other agents approached, and one ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing several feet away at the front-left of the vehicle which was turning away, when he fired three shots, killing her.
[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-af...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good
> Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward
No one disputes this. She and the others were deliberately antagonizing agents first. They were not random innocent third parties. She deliberately ignored the lawful orders of armed officers and drove towards them. In almost any other situation involving police, no one would be surprised if this happened.
2 replies →
[flagged]
Well one way you can understand why the poster finds it controversial would be to read it before commenting.
[flagged]
Perhaps it would be helpful to understand that people feel it necessary to flag the comment -- I tried to explain it in my parent comment here.
It’s not necessary at all, it’s grassroots ideological censorship.