Are hood FBAs actually happy with ICE?

[Ahmen]

This question assumes that if something is "illegal," the government can do whatever it wants, but that's not how the law works. Even people who violated immigration laws are still protected by due process. And for the record, unlawful entry is usually a misdemeanor, not a felony, yet it's being treated as grounds for extreme, collective punishment.

No. I simply asked which part of the law you choose to enforce.
If entering a country illegally only warrants a ticket, then why have borders? Usually people are deported, no questions asked. We've ignored enforcement, and many want to continue that policy, just admit that.
If due process means millions spent to delay deportation of people entering illegally, then I don't agree.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

No. I simply asked which part of the law you choose to enforce.
If entering a country illegally only warrants a ticket, then why have borders? Usually people are deported, no questions asked. We've ignored enforcement, and many want to continue that policy, just admit that.
If due process means millions spent to delay deportation of people entering illegally, then I don't agree.

No, you're arguing a false binary. You're acting like the only options are enforcing everything or getting rid of borders entirely, and that's just not how the law works. Due process is a constitutional requirement, not a delay tactic, and it applies to everyone, including non-citizens.

And the idea that enforcement was "ignored" or that people were deported "no questions asked" just isn't true. Every administration has deported large numbers of people. It just wasn't enough of a spectacle for you. You want mass punishment that looks tough and feels satisfying, even if it grants the state unchecked power.

The reality is that law enforcement is usually slow, procedural, and boring by design. That's what prevents abuse. If you are arguing for ignoring due process, then you are arguing in favor of authoritarianism.

 

[Ahmen]

No, you're arguing a false binary. You're acting like the only options are enforcing everything or getting rid of borders entirely, and that's just not how the law works. Due process is a constitutional requirement, not a delay tactic, and it applies to everyone, including non-citizens.

And the idea that enforcement was "ignored" or that people were deported "no questions asked" just isn't true. Every administration has deported large numbers of people. It just wasn't enough of a spectacle for you. You want mass punishment that looks tough and feels satisfying, even if it grants the state unchecked power.

The reality is that law enforcement is usually slow, procedural, and boring by design. That's what prevents abuse. If you are arguing for ignoring due process, then you are arguing in favor of authoritarianism.

No.
What stops abuse is strict enforcement. Either you want to enforce the laws or you don't. The consequences should not be "usually a misdemeanor", but immediate deportation. Hopefully, the citizenship by birth issue is settled soon to minimize loopholes and hand wringing.
You are too smart for me

 

[JadeB]

If immigrants are why FBAs lack housing, wealth, and jobs, why were these problems already entrenched before most of them arrived?

You're misidentifying the problem. Every condition you're mad about -- disinvestment, lack of loans, housing scarcity, job loss -- was created by redlining, capital flight, deindustrialization, mass incarceration, housing covenants, predatory finance, and so on. Those systems were designed and enforced by the capital class and the state long before large-scale immigration.

Immigrants didn't hollow out Black neighborhoods. Banks did. Corporations did. The government did.

Immigrants aren't being handed federal resources, either. Most are legally barred from them, especially undocumented immigrants (net contributors) and recent green card holders. The reason FBAs were denied loans and housing wasn't immigrant favoritism. It was state-sanctioned discrimination by banks, developers, and policymakers.

Before blaming immigrants, how many banks and financial institutions have been sued or fined for discriminating against Black Americans in lending and housing, and how many lawsuits exist showing immigrants being favored over FBAs?

Blaming immigrants for structural theft is the same logic the right uses to manipulate the middle class into hating the poor instead of confronting corporate power.

I also noticed you left out European immigrant groups.

This!

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

No.
What stops abuse is strict enforcement. Either you want to enforce the laws or you don't. The consequences should not be "usually a misdemeanor", but immediate deportation. Hopefully, the citizenship by birth issue is settled soon to minimize loopholes and hand wringing.
You are too smart for me

Yes? That's how the law works as defined by the Constitution. You are arguing for ignoring it when it's convenient. Well, where do we stop?

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

If immigrants are why FBAs lack housing, wealth, and jobs, why were these problems already entrenched before most of them arrived?

You're misidentifying the problem. Every condition you're mad about -- disinvestment, lack of loans, housing scarcity, job loss -- was created by redlining, capital flight, deindustrialization, mass incarceration, housing covenants, predatory finance, and so on. Those systems were designed and enforced by the capital class and the state long before large-scale immigration.

Immigrants didn't hollow out Black neighborhoods. Banks did. Corporations did. The government did.

Immigrants aren't being handed federal resources, either. Most are legally barred from them, especially undocumented immigrants (net contributors) and recent green card holders. The reason FBAs were denied loans and housing wasn't immigrant favoritism. It was state-sanctioned discrimination by banks, developers, and policymakers.

Before blaming immigrants, how many banks and financial institutions have been sued or fined for discriminating against Black Americans in lending and housing, and how many lawsuits exist showing immigrants being favored over FBAs?

Blaming immigrants for structural theft is the same logic the right uses to manipulate the middle class into hating the poor instead of confronting corporate power.

I also noticed you left out European immigrant groups.

 

[Ahmen]

Yes? That's how the law works as defined by the Constitution. You are arguing for ignoring it when it's convenient. Well, where do we stop?

No.
I'm not arguing at all, just stating opinion.
The Constitution is open to interpretation of courts and prevailing public norms - it can and will change (abortion, suffrage, etc). Ignoring immigration laws and blocking deportation (funded by tax dollars!) is convenient.
Black people have never benefited from the influx of illegal migrants regardless of what the current narrative pushes.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

No.
I'm not arguing at all, just stating opinion.
The Constitution is open to interpretation of courts and prevailing public norms - it can and will change (abortion, suffrage, etc). Ignoring immigration laws and blocking deportation (funded by tax dollars!) is convenient.
Black people have never benefited from the influx of illegal migrants regardless of what the current narrative pushes.

Claiming you're "just stating an opinion" doesn't change the substance of what you're trying to argue. You're still advocating for ignoring constitutional protections when they become inconvenient, while appealing to them when they suit your agenda. And while the Constitution is interpreted over time, that process happens through the courts, not through selective enforcement. That still doesn't mean the government gets to ignore it whenever it wants.

And invoking Black people here doesn't strengthen your point. Black communities haven't benefited from mass deportations or harsher enforcement, but from investment, labor protections, and civil rights enforcement -- none of which this administration is prioritizing. Using Black hardship to justify stripping rights from others is cynical deflection.

I have never seen you say anything about how this administration has been rolling back Black people's civil rights, enforcement of those rights, or banning remedies designed to address anti-Black discrimination. I've never seen you criticize their "fighting anti-white racism" agenda, either, so go somewhere with this fake concern.

 

[MoshpitMazi]

I’m against ICE and any federal agents being deployed on American soil, I find the immigration argument extremely weak, even borderline laughable when you live in certain states that entered the union later or have a patchy history.

But I’m also really against capitalism, I believe that land owners and corporations that use illegal work to skirt employee rights and taxes need to be really dealt with. We operate under this idea that these businesses are our friends and want our best interests when it’s consumerism at the end of the day.


This is all capitalist design and people aren’t waking up to it.

 

[Ahmen]

Great, we agree (as you simply restated what I wrote earlier about the Constitution and it's interpretation)!
The subject here is whether FBAs (is "ADOS" already out of favor?!) support ICE - as far as border and immigration enforcement is concerned, it is my experience that we do.
I can't speak to loss of any so-called black civil rights or anti-white racism agenda since I've personally experienced neither. But just so that I'm aware, what/how am I as Black man now limited or threatened to lose regarding civil rights/liberties?

BTW - the civil discourse is sincerely appreciated!

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Dusty MAGA incel babble

That doesn't address my point at all. I asked why Black housing, wealth, and job losses were already entrenched before large-scale immigration. A random video about fraud today doesn't answer that. And a single fraud case in one state doesn't explain country-wide patterns in Black housing, wealth, and employment. Pointing to one group in one place is cherry-picking to make a narrative work.

Not even surprised you listen to bums like Anton Daniels.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Great, we agree (as you simply restated what I wrote earlier about the Constitution and it's interpretation)!
The subject here is whether FBAs (is "ADOS" already out of favor?!) support ICE - as far as border and immigration enforcement is concerned, it is my experience that we do.
I can't speak to loss of any so-called black civil rights or anti-white racism agenda since I've personally experienced neither. But just so that I'm aware, what/how am I as Black man now limited or threatened to lose regarding civil rights/liberties?

BTW - the civil discourse is sincerely appreciated!

We don't agree, and reframing it that way sidesteps the issue instead of engaging it. You're arguing that enforcement should override constitutional limits when it's convenient. I'm saying the opposite, that enforcement *must* operate within constitutional boundaries, even when it's slow or politically inconvenient. I also express that it isn't based on the whims of one person, but on a process, through the courts and the law.

This also isn't about labels like FBA or ADOS. It's about whether Black people should be used rhetorically to justify policies that expand state power while offering no material benefit to our communities.

Black people don't support ICE, either.

Majorities of Americans disapprove of ICE and say the agency mistreats citizens and immigrants | YouGov

A majority (53%) of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of how ICE is handling its job; only 39% approve.

today.yougov.com

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/ICE_and_Deportations_poll_results.pdf

Spoiler

The fact that you personally haven't experienced civil rights erosion doesn't mean it isn't happening. Civil liberties are eroded structurally, through expanded surveillance, weakened due process, militarized enforcement, and the normalization of collective punishment.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/donald-trumps-war-on-black-people.1071502/ - You can join us in this thread to talk about it. It's full of examples.

Trump Administration Actions Against Black Americans Have Deep Historical Roots - Center for Progressive Reform

It is no coincidence that since taking office on Martin Luther King Day, the Trump administration’s most aggressive actions have targeted historically marginalized groups. In fact, the many blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and bizarre actions we saw during the first month of Trump 2.0 —...

progressivereform.org

Statement on the Trump Administration's Attacks on Civil Rights | New York City Bar Association

EAs to roll back civil rights protections for historically marginalized groups in direct contravention of Congress’s intent.

www.nycbar.org

Trump vows to crush 'anti-white' racism if he wins 2024 election.
Extremist Trump adviser drives ‘anti-white racism’ plan for Trump win.



As far as civility, you're the perfect example of how bad-faith actors use it as a shield to avoid accountability. You have completely failed to engage with anything I've said in any meaningful way. You just pushed your narrative. Don't talk to me about civility when all you're doing is performing it.

You're a dishonest person arguing for authoritarianism, ignoring the white nationalism of this administration, and hiding behind Black people to justify it all. You're the worst kind of snake.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

You don’t matter to me.

 

[JT-Money]

It will never happen.

 

[Fresh]

I feel bad about the people violated by ICE

but at the same time Black Americans have our own plate full of bullshyt to deal with so I'm not getting directly involved with other people's shyt, they gonna have to put some work in to fight American white supremacy, Black Americans have put in the work already