Masked Law Enforcement

[CaptainFritz28]

I really feel for Americans in this moment.

A lot of y'all clearly felt forced to pick between bad options and now you're getting some policies that, while foreseeable, weren't really what you were signing up for.

The burden here really probably should weigh heaviest on Trump voters, not because of moral culpability, but because their voices are the only ones that really matter in this case. A young conservative Christian making a principled case about defending the constitution and Americans' civil liberties would be much more impactful at this point than yet another blue haired oddball mixing their condemnation of ICE tactics (something I hope most Americans could agree with) with a deeply divisive and unpopular stance on immigration (let them all in, let them all stay, denigrate anyone who has a problem with this).

I think our own parties are the ones we ought to criticize the most. I haven't done so as much here because y'all do that for me, but in personal conversations I'm usually more critical of Trump than anyone else (unless there's someone just outright opposed to him).

So I agree, Republicans ought to recognize tribalism within our own and fight against it. Just because we voted for the fellow doesn't mean that we have to have an ego about it and think that everything he does is right. He's human, he's going to make mistakes, and he's in a position of power, meaning that he constantly has the temptation towards corruption. If we don't recognize that, then we're just naive.

That said, I also believe that we ought to hold to our principles. But doing so doesn't require blank-check endorsement of Trump.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It seems to me Trump is in fact violating most of the stated core principles of Republicans. Throwing out the Constitution in order to bully and extradite suspected illegals (with a stated policy preference for doing so without a trial) seems like the exact opposite of what a constitutional conservative should want.

That few Republicans express public qualms with this approach greatly empowers their most salacious detractors. It does look like, as a matter of fact, many Republicans don't actually have any principles whatsoever so long as the rights abuses don't personally threaten a certain type of white person in red states.

This should be a topic of conversation at churches, gun clubs, and Sunday dinner tables across red America. And maybe it is, but the impression one gets is that so long as the action looks tough on illegal immigration it is cheered on without regard to its constitutionality, or indeed even its effectiveness in reducing the number of illegal immigrants.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What I find interesting is that people are treating Trump's deportations as something totally new, when under Obama's administration over 3 million immigrants were deported, at a rate almost twice as high as Trump has been deporting people. Why did that policy suddenly change among the Democratic party as soon as Trump took office? Even Biden was in favor of deportations on a mass scale before Trump, and then all of a sudden he changes his mind with the rest of the party. The riots in LA, the protests all across the country... why weren't these present under Obama, and why did everyone change their minds?

How was Obama able to do this without the unseemly and un-constitutional act of using unidentifiable ICE agents? And without trying to convince the American public that the federal government needs a system of trial-less deportations? And the right to deport illegals to third countries?

It's really worth thinking through the Trump strategy in light of the Obama one. Obviously Trump rankles people more than previous presidents, and so he gets more pushback. But obviously the pushback in this case has something to do with the change in tactics, which you agree are abhorrent in some respects.

The lesson here is that there are legally sound ways to deport illegal immigrants in vast quantities and that the American public will actually be much more comfortable with an approach that isn't plainly fascistic lol. If anyone has the earnest goal of removing illegals from the US, they should consider the sustainability of the Trump approach, which seems tailor made to (i) see how far outside the constitution the federal government can act and (ii) to intentionally inflame red v. blue and white v. non-white conflict.

[Octavious]

I know you've found a comfortable angle with the gun thing to make an argument that's doesn't land specifically the Trump admin

Oh yes. There's nothing that shows unwavering loyalty to Trump like being anti-gun. If I was in the US you'd no doubt see me front and centre at MAGA rallies proudly wearing my National Truncheon Association t-shirt.

Seriously, man, give the obsession a rest

What's the good faith argument for the Trump admin prioritizing a strategy of random ICE agent mediated deportations, rather than merely expanding the existing E-verify system such that employers have a harder time employing illegals?

I've literally no idea. As I said, I know very little about it. I have no idea what the E system is, how it should work, and whether or not it's effective.

What is the good faith argument for a policy allowing ICE agents to hide their identity not only to the general public (via masking), but also in a manner that makes them totally unaccountable (i.e., the demonstrably lax rules on badging and ID)?

The good faith argument is providing protection to the servants of the people from ruthless criminal gangs. But I have no idea whether or not the degree of protection and compromises to accountability is justified by the level of threat.

When I said I don't know much about it what I meant was, surprisingly enough, that I don't know much about it. What I do know is that a gun is infinitely more threatening than a mask, because of the whole risk of being killed thing

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I know you've found a comfortable angle with the gun thing to make an argument that's doesn't land specifically the Trump admin

Oh yes. There's nothing that shows unwavering loyalty to Trump like being anti-gun. If I was in the US you'd no doubt see me front and centre at MAGA rallies proudly wearing my National Truncheon Association t-shirt.

Seriously, man, give the obsession a rest

What's the good faith argument for the Trump admin prioritizing a strategy of random ICE agent mediated deportations, rather than merely expanding the existing E-verify system such that employers have a harder time employing illegals?

I've literally no idea. As I said, I know very little about it. I have no idea what the E system is, how it should work, and whether or not it's effective.

What is the good faith argument for a policy allowing ICE agents to hide their identity not only to the general public (via masking), but also in a manner that makes them totally unaccountable (i.e., the demonstrably lax rules on badging and ID)?

The good faith argument is providing protection to the servants of the people from ruthless criminal gangs. But I have no idea whether or not the degree of protection and compromises to accountability is justified by the level of threat.

When I said I don't know much about it what I meant was, surprisingly enough, that I don't know much about it. What I do know is that a gun is infinitely more threatening than a mask, because of the whole risk of being killed thing

Okay, but the gun thing is a longstanding and probably unchangeable feature of US policing. The total anonymity of some federal law enforcement is a new thing that deserves scrutiny in its own right, even if one doesn't think it's as important as some other issue that cannot be changed lol. But fair enough if you don't know much about or feel interested in this...

[Octavious]

It just seems that a change in uniform policy of a foreign law enforcement group is a strange thing to prioritise. In a month where the British government have introduced abortion laws more extreme than pretty much anywhere in Europe, assisted suicide is being brought in, we're apparently going to be spending billions on introducing tactical nuclear weapons, defense spending is going wild, and disability benefits are being slashed, you'll understand that Yank headgear is barely registering on my political radar

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It just seems that a change in uniform policy of a foreign law enforcement group is a strange thing to prioritise. In a month where the British government have introduced abortion laws more extreme than pretty much anywhere in Europe, assisted suicide is being brought in, we're apparently going to be spending billions on introducing tactical nuclear weapons, defense spending is going wild, and disability benefits are being slashed, you'll understand that Yank headgear is barely registering on my political radar

If you don't care about this issue why are you so eager to downplay it? This is surely the weirdest and broadest whataboutery I've seen you engage in to date.

Again, what don't you get about the accountability argument? It's not like they just changed the colour of their hats—there are secret police in the USA, it's at least a medium-sized deal lol.

You're of course welcome to start a thread on those other things.

[Jamiet99uk]

Octavious, if this thread doesn't interest you, you are welcome to not post in it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Chanelling my inner Oct:

... British government have introduced abortion laws more extreme than pretty much anywhere in Europe,

Well I know literally nothing about this, but that's a balmy thing to care about. The UK isn't even 1% of global population, no matter what changes they make to their abortion policy it won't affect even 1% of fetuses or mothers.

assisted suicide is being brought in,

I've made sure not to read ANYTHING on the subject, nor even think about it, but I'm sure this is a non-issue. So a handful of sick folks in a peripheral European country might die sooner. It seems rather odd to care about this while the issue of murder still exists. That's like being lost in the jungle and caring more about the lemmings jumping off a cliff than the leopard threatening to eat your face.

we're apparently going to be spending billions on introducing tactical nuclear weapons, defense spending is going wild,

So the world's least important military is going to spend more on bombs it will never use? You'll surely understand why this isn't on my radar, though I do care just enough to tell you you're a nit for caring about this at all.

and disability benefits are being slashed, you'll understand that Yank headgear is barely registering on my political radar

You think disabled people care about their cheques? Surely the bigger problem in their life is their disability. We can only care about one thing at a time, never two or more things at once, so we need to choose whether we care about helping them manage their disability, or ensuring they aren't impoverished. You've clearly got your priorities wrong if you choose to care about the cheques.

[Octavious]

Octavious, if this thread doesn't interest you, you are welcome to not post in it.

My interest is in trying to figure out why it's interesting.

When I was working as a permitting officer for the UK chemical industry there was a well established chemical plant just off the motorway in Birmingham that was applying for a new biomass boiler to generate electricity for its operations. Part of its operations was the creation of white phosphorus which it stored on site prior to dispatch to various customers. The site, being in Birmingham, was surrounded not only by the road but also housing estates and nearby schools. Nobody cared about the white phosphorus.

But the idea of a new biomass boiler, which was a very small scale piece of kit generating renewable energy (not really renewable, of course, but it ticked the appropriate government box for environmental initiatives) by burning woodchip, generated over a thousand complaints from concerned locals worried about the potential risk.

The new created a near panic despite being almost entirely harmless. The old created no concerns, because it was what they were used to. White bloody phosphorus stored in massive containers near schools.

I'm seeing the same thing happening here with the masks and it's equally baffling. My conclusion at the time was that people are bloody nutcases, but was hoping to get a better insight from this.

[Octavious]

As you're not a Brit, Berti, those responses are entirely appropriate. But you're not a Yank either

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm seeing the same thing happening here with the masks and it's equally baffling. My conclusion at the time was that people are bloody nutcases, but was hoping to get a better insight from this.

What don't you understand about the need for law enforcement to identify themselves?

If they are totally anonymous, what stops randos from impersonating them (as is happening: https://prospect.org/justice/2025-06-24-ice-impersonations-proliferate-agencys-undercover-tactics/)?

What recourse will people have against agents who themselves break the law?

How might it feel to be detained and whisked away in an unmarked van by a armed stranger who cannot prove their identity? (e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/12/ice-masked-federal-agents-accountability-ozturk/)

Then again, you've just clarified that you think it's only worth caring about things that seem likely to immediately impact you in particular, so I guess disregard. But then don't come in and downplay lol, it's not very polite.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

As you're not a Brit, Berti, those responses are entirely appropriate. But you're not a Yank either

Those responses really weren't appropriate lol. UK policy affects millions of people whose lives matter. They are a signal for trends in the broader anglosphere that I'm a part of. They're also intellectually interesting issues that help sharpen my own thinking about related issues that do more directly affect my country and my life. Even if I couldn't be arsed to give a shit about these things, the appropriate response in that case would be no response at all.

Troubling developments in the US matter. Whether 300m+ Americans erode their constitutional norms and become more like a police state than they were before matters in its own right. It also matters indirectly for basically all people living in liberal countries given the US' heft. And thinking through these issues is one way to consider, selfishly, why such principles matter in my own country even though we don't currently face the exact same problem.

[CaptainFritz28]

Octavious, if this thread doesn't interest you, you are welcome to not post in it.

My interest is in trying to figure out why it's interesting.

When I was working as a permitting officer for the UK chemical industry there was a well established chemical plant just off the motorway in Birmingham that was applying for a new biomass boiler to generate electricity for its operations. Part of its operations was the creation of white phosphorus which it stored on site prior to dispatch to various customers. The site, being in Birmingham, was surrounded not only by the road but also housing estates and nearby schools. Nobody cared about the white phosphorus.

But the idea of a new biomass boiler, which was a very small scale piece of kit generating renewable energy (not really renewable, of course, but it ticked the appropriate government box for environmental initiatives) by burning woodchip, generated over a thousand complaints from concerned locals worried about the potential risk.

The new created a near panic despite being almost entirely harmless. The old created no concerns, because it was what they were used to. White bloody phosphorus stored in massive containers near schools.

I'm seeing the same thing happening here with the masks and it's equally baffling. My conclusion at the time was that people are bloody nutcases, but was hoping to get a better insight from this.

I suppose you could draw the conclusion that Bert and Jamie are foreigners to the US just trying to constantly find things to pick on the Trump administration for... but I think that would be somewhat dishonest. For them, the interest is likely one of "if this can happen there, a) what will happen next for America (which influences the world even with some of our more minor actions), and b) can and will it happen in my country?"
As for A, they see that this is a new precedent of law enforcement that is contrary to establishing justice. If justice breaks down to a certain extent things begin to get chaotic, which effects the economy and the military and thus the rest of the world.
As for B, for you and Jamie it's less of an issue, since y'all's police are quite a bit different than ours, but Canada has a more similar police force. I am unsure of the state of Canadian politics since Trudeau left office (I'd actually be interested to hear what Bert has to say about their new PM), but I imagine with change there is always the question of what will happen next.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

As for B, for you and Jamie it's less of an issue, since y'all's police are quite a bit different than ours, but Canada has a more similar police force.

The direct applicability to Canada here isn't super high. Our illegal immigrant problem is mostly a chosen one (non-enforcement of visas). Our law enforcement are armed, but our society is largely not, so the stakes around policing are considerable lower. And of course, we don't currently have a leader who seems eager to intentionally test the boundaries of unconstitutional policing (yes, the trucker stuff during COVID was in fact bad and concerning—maybe it's too early to tell, but that seems like it was a one-off rather than the start of a trend).

Regardless, there are good reasons to keep an eye on what goes on in the US. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but in some doomsday scenario of the breakdown of US democracy, I'd contend that liberal values everywhere would be in danger. Even incremental steps in that direction seem important to me.

The US is the only meaningful global champion of free markets, the only military capable and interested in defending liberal nations (though it does much else besides), and such a cultural hegemon that its internal political debates often set the tone for political conversations elsewhere. Canada is obviously more exposed to all this than the UK, Australia, etc., but I'd argue not by much.

I am unsure of the state of Canadian politics since Trudeau left office (I'd actually be interested to hear what Bert has to say about their new PM), but I imagine with change there is always the question of what will happen next.

Perhaps this is for another thread, but it's a weird situation.

Even PM Carney's detractors must begrudgingly admit he's a major improvement over Trudeau. He really does seem to be handling Trump well, better than many other foreign leaders do, and that was his central pitch to voters.

But it remains unclear whether or not he will be pull the Liberals to the center on key economic issues, as was promised in the campaign. The government did not release a spring budget this year despite signaling a major acceleration in spending, which is a real cause for consternation. Carney continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth regarding energy policy, which leaves a huge chunk of the Canadian economy in limbo. He seems determined to continue expanding federal power and the direct oversight of the federal Cabinet in the economy, which is bad economics and is worsening relations with the provinces. He's a big fan of industrial policy solutions to economic problems, despite their abysmal track record everywhere (but especially in Canada's tiny economy).

[Octavious]

I suppose you could draw the conclusion that Bert and Jamie are foreigners to the US just trying to constantly find things to pick on the Trump administration for... but I think that would be somewhat dishonest. For them, the interest is likely one of "if this can happen there, a) what will happen next for America (which influences the world even with some of our more minor actions), and b) can and will it happen in my country?"

I don't think so. America has always been an outlier as far as the West goes. America has a wildly different attitude to virtually everyone else regarding guns, healthcare, policing, punishment, patriotism, farming, food, cars, sport... It's amazing just how much America doesn't influence people, especially considering how much their media spreads across the globe.

I'd be far more worried about contagion of ideas if Canada or Denmark or Ireland started doing something. The Yanks and their ways are routinely ignored.

As for what happens next in America, it will happen regardless of anything I say or do. Worrying about things that only might happen over which you have no control is the way madness lies. You either panic about your own impotence or you join the ranks of lunatics and start building a bunker in your back garden.

At some point in our lifetime it's highly likely that a meteor powerful enough to level a city will strike the Earth, and it will cause a hell of a shock to people when it does because such events are rare enough to be forgotten . But I'm not going to worry about it, because what's the point? If it happens it happens. At some point a solar flare will knock out almost everything electionic. At some point a volcano will erupt with enough emissions to cause global crop failures. These events happen every hundred or every few hundred years on average, and we've largely forgotten them because it's been a while since the last times. But these events will cause far more upheaval than any local Yank event, and it's almost guaranteed that they will happen.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

We get it Oct, you're a nihilist. What's curious though is why it's seemingly important to you that everyone else adopt your nonchalant view towards everything that doesn't imminently and personally affect them. Why does someone with your view engage in any conversation whatsoever? Seems like you may as well just live out some hedonistic life and indulge quietly in the smug superiority you clearly feel over people who naively believe they have some interest or stake in the world around them.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I don't think so. America has always been an outlier as far as the West goes. America has a wildly different attitude to virtually everyone else regarding guns, healthcare, policing, punishment, patriotism, farming, food, cars, sport... It's amazing just how much America doesn't influence people, especially considering how much their media spreads across the globe.

Fast food, jeans, Apple products

The internet, GPS

Halloween, Black Friday

Air travel safety changes and state snooping post-9/11

Woke/anti-woke politics, Black Lives Matter, DEI

Global impacts of the 2008 US financial crisis, accelerated breakdown the WTO due to US delaying appointing appellants, global impact of Fed decisions/changes in Treasury yields

US' shaping of global conflicts (Iraq, Ukraine)

The list goes on and on and on and on. We all live in America's world to some extent.