US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[UWSaint]

I don't think anyone has a problem with criminals being arrested and deported.

But I do think most people like rule of law.

When ICE raids homes and work places without a warrant from a judge, when they harass people in the street based on their looks or an accent, when they kidnap children on their way home from school, when they detain people without stating a reason for their arrest, when they deny their prisoners access to a lawyer or to inform their family of where they are, and when they kill people for seemingly no reason and then aren't tried in a court - that's not law enforcement, that's domestic terrorism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comm ... es_korean/

Do you really think all these Minnesotans are taking to the streets to protect violent criminals?
They are taking to the streets to protect their neighbours and coworkers.

As one should when a government revokes constitutional rights and resorts to tyrannical measures.

It is not the deportations per se that are the problem, it is the lack of due process.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I kept quiet; I wasn't a communist.
When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a trade unionist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a social democrat.
When they locked up the Jews, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.

Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984

(You often see various versions starting "First they came for..." but I think this is the English translation closest to the German original)

Do you honestly think there would be regular protests mostly without incident if the government was actually tyrannical?

I’m not saying there are no instances of ice officers violating a person’s constitutional rights; our law books are full of cases where that claim has been brought. Sometimes they are proven, mostly they are not. But they are proven through a process, which hasn’t preceded your blanket allegation of tyranny.

But most of what I see, as I just said above, is people complaining about law enforcement activity that happens all the time that people don’t think through.

Arrests without warrants and entry into public spaces without warrants. All the time. Warrants issued by non judicial officers to obtain info from businesses, or administrative warrants issued the agency? All the time (and I will join you in questioning the propriety of this, but it’s not “new”). Initially, warrants were issued by magistrates or justices of the peace that were seen as part of the crown (executives); regular placement into the judiciary is a later development, which I support but am saying this for perspective.

Harrassing people for how they look or speak? That’s a meme and thought terminating cliche; law enforcement can try to talk to anyone (as can you or I), but to temporarily detain, they have to have specific and articulable suspicions. Might language be one element of this if you are looking for someone who speaks that language or who physically matches the description of the person being search for? Of course. Might it happen that an officer does this from time to time without meeting the standard? Sure. Cops doing their jobs poorly is always an issue. But does it mean every stop of a minority is based on them being a minority? Of course not. Yet is there an interest in making that claim as a universal truth if you are the person detained or are trying to undermine police authority? You bet!

Kidnapping children to and from school? Is there another word you might use for taking custody of a child? Better in school, in front of classmates? Where else to kids travel on their own whose path might be known to authorities? Doesn’t the state take custody of children *all the time* when custodians have been arrested (ultimately to be placed with another relative or fostered). And if mom or dad is being deported, I thought family separation was a problem….

Detention without a statement as to the reason? Agree this is a problem if this is true after the situation is controlled. (You can arrest and then explain). Is it happening all of the time? I’ve seen nothing that suggests on a wide scale basis; no evidence of people being held for long periods of time without charges.

Unpersoning (can’t contact lawyer, relative)? Maybe not at the precise moment asked. Did you know you can search any name on Ice’s site to determine whether they are in ice custody?

Look, I am not saying abuses don’t happen. But I am saying that legitimate grievances are hard to hear when there is so much exaggerated noise.

[donlever]

The thing that troubles me about all of this UW is we hear so much "noise" about Trumps ICE yet so little uproar about the Iryna Zarutskas of the world.

It's one of the reasons I don't bother talking about it.

[JelloPuddingPop]

The thing that troubles me about all of this UW is we hear so much "noise" about Trumps ICE yet so little uproar about the Iryna Zarutskas of the world.

It's one of the reasons I don't bother talking about it.

Didn't they create a law based on the Iryna case? I'd say it got a bit of "uproar" - no laws have been made about badly trained ICE agents running amok.

[donlever]

Moreso I mean the ongoing accentuated, stir the pot drama and CNN and MSNBC and blocking roads and making signs and social media and using it as a political call sign at a GDHTMB......

...and she is just 1 of many names we could drop on the "other" side.

I find it all pretty inequitable tbh....

[UWSaint]

The thing that troubles me about all of this UW is we hear so much "noise" about Trumps ICE yet so little uproar about the Iryna Zarutskas of the world.

It's one of the reasons I don't bother talking about it.

One might even think that by observing what outrage is selected, one might divine what the true complaint is.

Which isn’t to say people might not like ICE or law enforcement generally for valid reasons. But I can’t ignore that ice operations happen throughout the country and the response is bespoke in Minnesota, the site of the summer of “love” in 2020 and the place that was in the spotlight for billions in obvious fraud (who is talking about that now?)

[donlever]

Yeah....that's part of the inequitable I am denoting UW.

Welcome my son, welcome, to the machine....

[5thhorseman]

ICE will patrol where they have reason to believe there are illegal immigrants. If this means a polling station, this suggests a far greater subversion of citizen-democracy than the presence of ICE.

There's hardly any evidence of illegal voting. Of all the places ICE could catch illegals it probably has the worst return.

Hence the suggestion that they would be there for other reasons.

[Meds]

Per's post

Do you honestly think there would be regular protests mostly without incident if the government was actually tyrannical?

...

Look, I am not saying abuses don’t happen. But I am saying that legitimate grievances are hard to hear when there is so much exaggerated noise.

Good response UW, as per your usual.

I'd say that you are beating your head against a wall when engaging with people like Per. To use the tongue in cheek DSM diagnosis, they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome to such a degree that they cannot help but oppose and condemn anything done in the USA while he is President.

If someone was being charged for the murder of a child, and the TDS sufferers wanted his head, and then Trump said they should throw the book at him and outright condemned the guy, the people who hate the Donald would about face and argue for compassion and understanding to help the convict because they cannot fathom being aligned with Trump. An extreme example to be sure, but only to intentionally dramatize my point.

I have found this to be worse with people who consider themselves enlightened and educated, people who pride themselves on being analytical and progressive. It is a symptom of leftist politics as well.....preach tolerance but to the point of being completely intolerant and closed off to any facts that do not support, or outright contradict their view.

This is not to smear Per. He is indeed educated, intelligent, and analytical.....and I use him in this example because it was his post you replied to. In his case I find that many of his charts and graphs and arguments don't actually bear out in the day-to-day life of the average individual's experience. They are idealistic, and there is nothing wrong with that. And we all know that data can be presented in a way that supports whatever argument the compiler would like it to by using qualifiers and omissions. But often, idealists are incapable of making room for opposing points and middle ground is hard to come by.

And this is true of people on both ends of the spectrum.

Your point about exaggerated noise is well taken. Those who are idealistic often find themselves in an echo chamber.....without even realizing it, and right now the mainstream media strives to create exactly that. CNN and MSNBC (CBC and Global in Canada) on one end of the spectrum, and Fox is their counterpoint. All of them have gotten to the point where they are expressing such polarizing views that they are creating echo chambers on opposite ends of the extreme.....and those chambers are expanding.

[UWSaint]

ICE will patrol where they have reason to believe there are illegal immigrants. If this means a polling station, this suggests a far greater subversion of citizen-democracy than the presence of ICE.

There's hardly any evidence of illegal voting. Of all the places ICE could catch illegals it probably has the worst return.

Hence the suggestion that they would be there for other reasons.

There is absolutely illegal voting by non-citizens, and I know this not just by what I read but what I've done in my professional career; there are prosecutions every election cycle by district attorneys and us attorneys who haven't swallowed their whistles. Not sure what you mean by "hardly any" -- I see this term and "rarely" pasted in the press about on this issue -- how many cases and instances of illegal voting would you think too many? Crime is "rare" in almost every area depending on what one means by the term (the chance I am a crime victim today; almost zero -- its so rare I haven't been a (knowing) victim of a crime in the past 8,500 days or so). Plus, depending on the election law in a given state, it is easier or more difficult to vote illegally. The rules matter, which is why people fight about them so much. (Of course all ballot security measures involve a tradeoff of ease v. integrity, so there are many reasons other than "facilitate illegal voting" for opposing ballot security measures).

Also, what is the suggestion of the presence of ICE agents to a lawful voter? Really, what does a reasonable person think when they are standing in line and see an ICE agent in the corner? Oh no! They are going to kidnap me! They are going to eat my ballot! Law enforcement, the FBI, state investigative agents, etc. -- these folks show up at polls during every election, sometimes to monitor, sometimes to respond to complaints, sometimes in plain clothes because there's been a credible tip of an organized attempt to vote illegally (yes, this happens), what is it about ICE that's going to have folks deterred from voting that they would have suspicions about with these other forms of law enforcement? Well, maybe foreign nationals would be deterred, so there's that.... If you were not allowed to vote, would you be more or less likely to vote in the presence of a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction to detain you?

I never understood election fraud denial. People cheat in Wall Street. They cheat on their spouses. They steal goods and services. People clearly care deeply about politics. They give a lot of money and take the time to vote, knowing full well that their marginal influence on the result from this activity is a limit approaching zero (just as a matter of math). Why on earth would cheating be evident everywhere in society and not here? (Oh, and we have had many fraud prosecutions, or referrals from election authorities that for one reason of another did not result in a prosecution).

The only question is how much does it happen, and what are the tools to detect/deter/prevent it and are they on balance worth the possibility of decreasing ballot access or increasing voting transaction costs.

[5thhorseman]

Nobody's denying election fraud, just saying that the amount of fraud is negligible and does not affect elections. Are you saying otherwise? Has illegal voting ever affected an election?

As you stated, the marginal effect of a single voter is a limit approaching zero, so why would an illegal risk a 5-year prison term and/or deportation just to have this negligible influence on an election? Yes, people cheat all the time in life but typically they stand to gain in proportion to the risk taken. The gain from voting illegally is negligible while the risk is catastrophic.

My understanding is that in the US, typically anyone can obtain voter rolls from state or local election offices to check the eligibility of those who voted. This is an incredibly open and auditable process, which is why decreasing ballot access or increasing voting transaction costs is looked upon by the left as an attempt to suppress certain voter groups.

[UWSaint]

Nobody's denying election fraud, just saying that the amount of fraud is negligible and does not affect elections. Are you saying otherwise? Has illegal voting ever affected an election?

Of course. In 2020, many states were expanding mail in balloting saying there’s no such thing as mail in ballot fraud. They were saying all the incantations of faith, “rare,” “never happens,” “racist to oppose”, and the media dutifully reported “debunked” claims of voter fraud, etc.

And the thing was, a *congressional* race was reversed because of mail in fraud just two years before. Here’s a link to a social science study about it https://liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/elj.2019.0544, but understand that I am not just relying on a study, the state elections board decertified the election.

And while we don’t know how many elections are tipped by fraud, I don’t think it matters because every unlawful vote dilutes a lawful one and also calls people to question the integrity of elections. What’s more, the reason we don’t know is that even valid cases are hard to prove in the time it takes before an election is certified (imagine how many white collar crimes would go unpunished if the effective statute of limitations was a month…..) and there is an important presumption of regularity in our elections.

Thing is, similar statistical anomalies as the case example above were spotted in the nothing-to-see-here 2020 election; I don’t know enough about them to know if they were bull shit or well done, but even if well done, those anomalies themselves don’t really prove the case on their own. You have to investigate, you have to get someone to turn, and it isn’t easy to do especially on short time lines. And Congress which can function without a vacant seat, there is nothing but bad things that happen when a one person executive’s election is doubted. The objective loser taking the seat or the objective winner not taking the seat — all before most any process can determine what is objective.

As you stated, the marginal effect of a single voter is a limit approaching zero, so why would an illegal risk a 5-year prison term and/or deportation just to have this negligible influence on an election? Yes, people cheat all the time in life but typically they stand to gain in proportion to the risk taken. The gain from voting illegally is negligible while the risk is catastrophic.

My point is people already make irrational calculations when it comes to voting. But really, aren’t you just making an argument against anyone ever committing the crime? Or any foreign national ever committing any crime ever. And yet it happens.

My understanding is that in the US, typically anyone can obtain voter rolls from state or local election offices to check the eligibility of those who voted. This is an incredibly open and auditable process, which is why decreasing ballot access or increasing voting transaction costs is looked upon by the left as an attempt to suppress certain voter groups.

True, voter rolls are open for inspection. And transparency generally is a great tool to make fraud more difficult. And in some states, the ballots themselves are also open to inspection (though Fulton County Georgia has tried to hide them re the 2020 election….). I’m not going to get into an exegesis on all the ways that one could commit fraud that would be very difficult to detect, but there are many and their ease depends very much upon election laws that are in place in a given jurisdiction. Heck, until my state had voter id, any person could go to the polls, announce themselves as another person, sign the book, and vote. As long as the person hadn’t already voted, there was no way to ever get the person committing the crime. No cameras are allowed in polling places. Normally, though, the strategy was to use a recently deceased persons name (whose death would be published and who would still be on the voter rolls). How do you think all the dead people vote? And you can never fully prevent inside jobs (but insiders never commit crimes, right?). But should we develop laws and enforcement tools to make fraud more difficult to pull off? Yes of course—the goal is that everyone eligible to vote can do so and everyone ineligible to vote will not and the votes are counted accurately and timely. Different policies and laws have different effects on that equation.

And at the end of the day, because most states have constitutional rights to the secret (aka Australian) ballot, we will always have a gap between the voter and the ballot that makes the extent of fraud very tough to unpack. But we value the secret ballot for good reason.

[Cornuck]

What's confusing, though, is that the main republican talking point is that "Illegals" are voting in huge numbers (millions!!) and that they claim this is the reason for changes in the voting laws, rules, and procedures.

The number of cases of 'illegals' votes has been found to be negligible. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation found that it's only "68 total cases of noncitizen voting going back to the earliest cases documented in the 1980s"

When you mention "voter fraud" to the typical person, they assume that it's one person voting when they know they shouldn't. The usual cases are party operatives acting on behalf of their chosen candidate. The punishments for an individual committing voter fraud is a LOT higher than say... a group of people who try to send a fake group of electors to represent their state.

Then you have states purging voter rolls excessively to make it harder / more confusing for votes (again, this seems to be in republican states mostly).

And the worst example of all is the crybaby-in-cheif who screams "VOTER FRAUD" only when he loses - makes big bold claims lies that are never proven in court (I think he won one case?) - he has done more to hurt the election process than any single person in the country.

When the mid-terms come around, and the results are in - we know that the results will be fairly accurate - and that one person will be crying about the elections his team lost. It's pathetic.

BUT..... with all of that said.... as long as Citizens United is still law, elections are not as pure as they should be.

[UWSaint]

It’s not confusing why foreign nationals voting is often the call to action. Because it is red meat for MAGA. I agree that this is not where the majority of fraud or mistake is from (ineligible voters or manufactured ballots or system error), but I also agree that it would be far more likely to happen in places that allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections and basically would be untraceable. (Federal law change earlier this year ended that).

I find it hilarious that there are people who know who Trump is and know who the Clinton’s are and know what the Biden family is about and also find the prospect of coordinated voter fraud unimaginable. That’s not an accusation they did it (heck, why engage in subterfuge when the dnc just openly allows all votes to not count the same, see 2016 primary), just a simple observation that might make an election fraud denier do a double take about how easy it is to swallow propaganda from your team without even recognizing the nothing-to-see-here-ever position doesn’t pass the straight face test.