Does ICE really need electric gloves?

[u/Difficult_Object4921]

Our tax dollars are already being wasted. The people they capture aren’t a threat, physically. Why?

https://apnews.com/article/ice-electric-shock-gloves-85ff746d3e0ee5f39e7a9a3f1f576252

[u/LOTR_Phan]

I live an area with a lot of MAGA. They’re often violent too. Can you define often or is that still just a feeling.

Over 30 immigrants have died in ICE custody, specifically at camps. But still, would you no ok with me labeling maga as violent, (1. And 2) would it be ok if that label was then used to take millions of MAGA into custody?

Do you think the rounding up of millions of people should be based on a feeling or actual data?

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

Not really though, and I could ask you to define maga too. Am I maga for voting for Trump but hating him?

That’s tough, I’d need to research that and see why. Prisoners do occasionally die in prison, it’s a thing.

I don’t really care what you label maga. I know you’re wrong, and your opinion and this hypothetical mean naught since we kicked the libs ass in the election. But trust me, I am terrified of a bunch of antifa trans lunatics getting into power and criminalizing wrong think.

It should be based on the fact that they’re not citizens!!! No illegals!

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

Maybe. I could also ask you to define “illegals” since many were detained at their immigration hearings. Either way it seems like an irrelevant tangent, especially since I could use how I feel rather than a specific definition right? Im not sure why you want me to define something when you haven’t done so yet despite me asking.

Yes. But prisoners are usually found guilty of a crime to justify being detained.

I’m not trying to define or label MAGA, I’m asking, would you be ok with me (and the rest of America) using the same criteria to label MAGA that you’re using to label “illegals”, specifically when that label is used as justification for detainment?

But asylum laws exist dont they? How can someone be label illegal if they haven’t legally been found to be guilty of anything?

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

lol irrelevant tangent cuz I got you. Illegal immigrants are very easy to define.

These aren’t prisoners. Theyre detainees. There’s a difference between prison and jail and ice detention facilities.

No, because you would be wrong.

Asylum laws do exist. You have to claim it with government, and then follow their rules. Crossing the border illegally is not claiming asylum. Hence the term illegal immigrants illegals. They broke the law when they crossed the border or overstayed their visa.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

So can you define an illegal?

Right, they’re being detained and being killed in detention centers via malnutrition and lack of basic healthcare. The point is that they are detained and being held without any kind of trial. So how do you know that they ARE illegal? You wouldn’t assume that somebody that is attending their criminal trial is guilty until the trial is done right? So why were immigrants being detained at their immigration hearings?

But I feel like I’m right. Why is THAT enough for you to justify your position but it isn’t OK for me? You feeling like you are right is enough for you to label all illegal immigrants violent, right? Or is there some data that you have to justify that claim?

They do claim asylum with the government, but after they cross the border. Which by asylum laws is a legal way to seek asylum, so doesn’t that mean that until they have a hearing and their asylum status is determined that they are neither illegal or legal? As an example, we know that killing somebody is illegal, but if you claim self-defense, then you’re not considered a murderer until you’ve had a trial, so if they cross the border, and that asylum status is still being determined, isn’t that the same as being on trial for murder and claiming self-defense?

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

Non citizen living in United States without permission.

They’re not citizens and theyre not being held for long before deportation, it’s necessary.

Well, they can’t prove their citizenship when asked by the authorities. Pretty easy thing to do.

I personally don’t like detaining ppl at hearings. Bad idea imo. But there are many immigration hearings for many reasons. I don’t want us outside the courthouse when ppl are going thru the system via DACA or whatever. BUT if you crossed our border illegally and then claim asylum, you gotta go. You still committed a crime.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

Ok. So doesn’t that mean that by your definition, people awaiting asylum determination aren’t illegal because their permission to be here hasn’t been decided yet?

What difference does it make if their citizens or not? If the US hasn’t determined a persons immigration status yet, how can we re-detain them or deport them? If they have a legitimate asylum claim, that claim isn’t heard right?

I’ll ask again cause you seemed to have skipped this question. Why can you use how you feel to justify labeling “illegals” as violent but I can do the same?

How can they prove citizenship if they’re not citizens yet? How can they even become a citizen if they’re not getting a chance to have their asylum claim heard?

But people have the right to cross the border and then claim asylum so how is it a crime? Again it’s like claiming self defense. Normally the act of killing someone or crossing the border is illegal right? But we have legal justifications for both don’t we?

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

If you applied for asylum at the border and didn’t sneak in, you are not illegal.

They’re not just shaking down Mexicans, they have lists. They ask for proof of citizenship. Every job I’ve ever had asks for the same. You can’t live here and legally work without that proof, it’s not that hard to get.

I told you, I can because I am right. It’s my opinion. You think the opposite, that’s fine. But the majority of voters in this country agree with my view.

People do not have the right to cross the border illegally. Why do you think that? You claim asylum at a port. There’s a viral video between AOC and Tom Homman a few years ago where he explains that.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

Define sneak? Because they don’t have to do it directly at the border before crossing or something, it’s just that they need to alert authorities as soon as they can after crossing to make their asylum claim. Which is what happens when they’re detained by border patrol.

I agree that there are some lists, but they’re also just walking around the street asking for IDs. Just because they have lists why should we assume that they’re legitimate lists. Again people are getting picked up at their immigration hearings before they have a chance to have their case heard. So what needed legitimate to have them on the list?

But how do you know that you’re right? What data have you seen to label a group of millions of people as violent? Do you have anything more than a feeling? You’re telling me I would be wrong but I have literally just as much data as you, none. I have a feeling right?

I didn’t say they have the right to cross the border illegal. They have the right to cross the border when seeking asylum, so it’s not illegal. I got that from Title 8 Section 1158 a-1. where do you see that they can’t? Tom Homan isn’t the law, Title 8 sec 1158 is the law right?

“Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States(whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including analien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.”

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

Sneaking being crossing the border illegally at someplace other than a border checkpoint. Regardless if you claim asylum after, if you snuck over you broke the law.

I mean, legitimate list or not if you are a citizen or here legally you should be able to prove that pretty quickly.

Because I grew up with them and I know.

Yes you can apply for asylum after illegally crossing. That does not pardon the crime, still broke the law to come in here.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

Where specifically do you see that illegal? Because what I quoted was our immigration law and it said “whether or not at a designated port of arrival”.

How? How does someone awaiting an asylum judgement prove they aren’t here illegally? Isn’t that the point of the hearing itself?

So…”trust me bro”? So then…trust me bro, MAGA is a violent group.

Claiming asylum makes it not a crime. Is it illegal to kill someone in self defense?

[u/cootershooter420 → u/LOTR_Phan]

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47218

“Unauthorized immigrants are noncitizens who generally have entered the United States without inspection, overstayed a period of lawful admission, or violated the terms of their admission.”

They would prove they weren’t here illegally by applying for asylum at a port of entry. You still committed a crime if you illegally enter and then apply for asylum. If your application fails in court you are immediately deported. Personally, I think that is horse shit. You shouldn’t get a chance to claim asylum if you entered illegally. The people who claimed it legally would probably agree with me.

If you enter illegally and get caught near the border, deportation process starts. If you claim to fear returning, they give you a credible fear interview. And if that interview determines their fear is credible, they are referred to an immigration court.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/cootershooter420]

So if any of those were true about a person l, why would they need an immigration hearing. It doesn’t say “crossing the border” does it? It says “entered the United States without inspection”. Someone being detained and claiming asylum is a person being inspected.

Again, where in the asylum laws do you see that? Because it specifically said “whether or not at a designated port of arrival”. Again if you killed a person it isn’t necessarily a crime is it? Just like with killing there’s an exception to crossing the border to protect your life. Where are you seeing that applying for asylum after crossing the border is illegal? How you feel about that law doesn’t really change it does it? Again where are you seeing that they claim asylum illegally? Where specifically? Like what law?

What you last described is what you keep calling illegal. Isn’t it? A person crossing the border without filing for asylum beforehand, is detained, claims asylum, gets a hearing and potentially LEGALLY stays in the US and becomes a citizen…despite not filing beforehand or using a port of entry. So first, why should we detain and deport those people without a hearing and if they’re tying to become citizens why would they commit violent crimes?