> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.
According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.
> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?
If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.
> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons.
I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection.
Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?
Yes, you can twist public benefits to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition, also the first result on Google, reads "Public benefits are forms of assistance provided by the government to individuals and families, often based on need, to help with various aspects of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and financial stability. These benefits are typically funded through taxpayer dollars and aim to alleviate financial burdens and promote well-being." I think it's pretty clear that's what everyone is talking about here.
Are you trying to imply that the people who don't pay federal income tax have heavy state tax burdens? Or you think they're making a dent with their sales tax contributions? The only thing that everyone pays indirectly or directly is property taxes, which averages to about 1-2% of income. Again, nothing close to federal income taxes (for those that pay them).
So I ask this question in good faith: What are the due process rights that have been taken away? What is this administration doing different from the prior ones in regards to detaining suspected illegal immigrants? While I don't doubt there could be something, I haven't seen a coherent answer to this question.
I am happy to change my mind, but in this situation all I see is a political candidate interfering with federal agents and getting arrested for it. I see lots of really questionable things happening, like these agents wearing masks and dressing in hoodies, but mentioning that does not address the due process question. If someone could address this point directly and without hyperbole, I am eager to be better informed about it.
They're deporting them without trial. They don't even try to confirm they capture the right people. They've arrested several US citizens. Notice where this arrest occurred: at a courthouse. Why? Because this person was complying with the law and going through the immigration process.
What about masked men kidnapping random people, then sending them somewhere like a prison in El Salvador seems just to you? Do you remember this happening previously in your life?
I feel like they're arresting these people at courthouses so that it will instill fear in others of going through the legal process. Then they can deport many more immigrants and say "look, they didn't go to court, they're definitely illegal".
My understanding is that they're doing this under the "expedited removal" provision of the 1996 IIRIRA law. If you've been in the US less than 2 years, arrived without inspection or at a port of entry with invalid documents, or don't have lawful resident status, you're subject to expedited removal. If not, you are entitled to an administrative immigration hearing.
For some context, under Obama in 2013, there were roughly 197,000 expedited removals (45% of ~432,000 total deportations). So this was widely used by DHS during the Obama administration. Nothing has changed except ICE policies about where people are permitted to be detained and where they are targeting people. Unless I'm missing something?
I'll be the first to admit they look like masked goons and entirely unprofessional grabbing people off the street in hoodies. It's horrible optics and is absurdly unprofessional. I completely disagree with the mechanics of how this is being carried out. But it's not unconstitutional or unlawful as far I can tell.
> But it's not unconstitutional or unlawful as far I can tell.
The problem is that you can’t tell: if they follow the law, you can be fairly confident that it is constitutional but when they’re rapidly deporting people without hearings and with officers actively resisting oversight, we have only their word that the people being deported do in fact meet those criteria. Since they’ve been documented as detaining citizens, lying about things like asylum claims or criminal status, etc. in many cases, their word alone is now untrustworthy for any case. They chose to create that distrust and the only way to build trust is for them to stop prioritizing quotas over legality.
What’s happening now is exactly what happens every time some incompetent boss tells everyone to hit a number no matter what, except that the stakes are far higher.
> Since they’ve been documented as detaining citizens
So I've seen this claim a few times and I have personally heard of a few well publicized cases where this occurred. Given the nature of the work, I'd imagine it's almost impossible for this not to happen at some point. From Wikipedia:
- Between FY 2015 and Q2 FY 2020, ICE arrested 674 individuals believed to be U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70 (GAO)
- From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained around 1,480 U.S. citizens
- 2008-2012 saw 834 U.S. citizens and 28,489 permanent residents mistakenly placed on immigration detainers .
So it seems this may have been happening at an even higher rate under other administrations. This is not a defense of the practice... I can't describe how angry I would be if this happened to someone in my family. But I am trying to be objective and react based on numbers, not emotions, and convince others to do the same.
> What’s happening now is exactly what happens every time some incompetent boss tells everyone to hit a number no matter what, except that the stakes are far higher.
My biggest concern is that words being misused are burning the credibility that may eventually be necessary. It would not surprise me if Trump started ordering them to do unconstitional and unlawful things. But if you've been throwing those words around carelessly and inaccurately, you'll have no credibility to use them when the need truly arises.
So until every police officer follows the law, everywhere, in every instance, you believe anyone should be entitled to obstruct arrests if they disagree with the law?
That’s a great example of a straw man argument. I especially like the way you start by acknowledging that the question is official misconduct but by the end of the sentence have flipped it to blame people for expecting law enforcement officers to follow the law.
> I'm not saying that small startups aren't getting tax bills or that those bills don't suck; I'm saying that they don't explain industry wide hiring trends.
It's not having a wide effect on the industry as a whole right now, but it's creating a huge problem in the startup pipeline that will be apparent in 3-5 years. It's effectively strangling anyone who wants to bootstrap a startup.
Obviously industry trends are multivariate, but the way you're talking about this seems to indicate you are seriously disconnected from the finance side of tech startups. This is squeezing a very specific part of the startup pipeline, the transition stage of going from founder-led development to first engineer hires. It makes it much more capital intensive to make that jump because of Section 174. It's scaring away potential founders and making existing early stage startups go slower.
Do you really think MLK Jr. didn't want to punch those cops in the face that were beating people at his marches? But he had emotional IQ, discipline, and effective organization. The current crop lacks all of that and the results are showing it.
Go look at news coverage from the period, he was denounced as an agent of chaos and blamed for riots all the time. Read history, not the anodyne postcard version of it.
His behavior at his marches is well documented. He wasn't setting anything on fire or throwing rocks at police. One way brings the American center to your side, the other pushes them away. Those who ignore this do so at the peril of their own causes.
Yes, the parent's point is that despite being restrained as you describe, the establishment still tried to paint MLK as a provocateur. Which speaks to my point that the status quo faction is always going to frame protestors this way in order to undermine them.
Yes and the videos of his peaceful marches and the brutality of the police ended up discrediting the establishment propaganda against him and bringing the American center to his side. It's the most historically successful strategy in activist history, but no one wants to do that because it doesn't feel good in the moment.
Obama deported millions with relatively little pushback. Because he did not deny anyone due process.
Everybody has a requirement for due process. It's the only constitutional way to prove someone is an illegal alien, or overstayed their welcome, or has a history.
You cannot "enforce existing immigration laws" by ignoring due process, because they are a requirement of existing immigration laws
> Obama deported millions with relatively little pushback. Because he did not deny anyone due process.
This is blatantly inaccurate. Obama administration frequently used expedited removal to deport people without hearings. Don't take my word for it, a simple Google search will serve you well.
existing laws require permits, and don't let them raid elementary schools for minors and courthouses for those going through the legal process. We just "mistakenly" sent a US ciizen to a foreign country to a month, ignoring a 9-0 Supreme court order to delay the process to bring him home.
If this is action you agree with, just say so. But the books do not support this.
There is no law against apprehending illegal aliens in courthouses. It might be a bad idea in terms of optics and public policy but it doesn't appear to be specifically illegal.
According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.
> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?
If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.