United States ICE facilities, policies and their performance

[Arch Dornan]

Given that Trump more or less gave them the explicit goal to 'ensure that no one enters the country within their means'...

Then the journalists and politicians should prep themselves for political ammunition for that.

 

[Arch Dornan]

I remember an amusing article about ICE Bae. But the person that was being talked about wasn't a member of ICE but the CBP. Didn't stop the hate.
She's a Democrat member too.

#ICEBae Trends As People Slam 'Customs Officer' Over Selfie

The social media account of a woman claiming to be a U.S. "customs officer" has gained more than 29,500 followers.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Battlegrinder]

So, I see some we had some discussions about ICE and falsely deporting US citizens. However, I also see there were precious few facts involved in that discussion, particularly on the side of those claiming it's highly prevalent. So I decided to spend a few minutes doing some research.

In 2010, the US deported 392,862 people. There's no precise figure on how many were falsely deported, in part because it's often lumped in with arrests and detentions, and the available figures are often widely divergent. The highest I've found is 4,000 wrongful detentions/deportations in 2010, while other sources have cited a yearly average of 250 US citizens being released from ICE custody after proving thier citizenship.

Using the highest figure, that's a 1.01% error rate.....which is, for context, half the rate of wrongful convictions in the regular court system (probably, data on latter is just as scarce and variable as data on ICE mistakes). You're free to draw your own conclusions on if that's an acceptable error rate or what it means about ICE as an agency.

For me, given the fact that unlike with issues like global warming or firearms where data exists that supports or can be massaged to support a given agenda and is consequentially brought at length, when ICE mistakes come up the rethotic condemning them is high on emotional appeals and vagur references to alleged misdeeds in court cases (illustrated with just enough details to evoke the desired response without providing enough information to actually look up the specific case being referenced), I suspect that the figure I've presented here is at least in the correct ballpark, because if ICE was just tossing US citizens over the border en mass, it's accusers would present data to show that. The fact that they don't and instead make thier case via poorly sourced anecdotes and numbers divorced of meaningful context speaks volumes.

 

[The Original Sixth]

That is not the Democrat's talking point and you know it. The vast majority of the Democrats want to essentially make the entire process less byzantine than it already is. Something that even Bush Jr. understood as necessary.

Bullcrap.

That might have been how the DNC functioned fifteen or twenty years ago, but now? Nope. NYC "intellectuals" and Left Coast race realists basically think we should hand the southern portion of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California back to Hispanics from Mexico and Central America because it's a strategic tool against the Deep Southerners and the Appalachians.

The strategy is obvious. Return enough El Norte (or near enough to assimilate with them and not the southerners) to the southern states and you basically lock the southern bloc of the US into subservience. That's why Obama didn't do shit while pretending he was; it was a Yankee strategy to cripple the south. And it is working. Which is why you're all throwing a fucking fit that Trump is actually deporting anyone who violates the border.

You all never really gave two shits about what happens to them. All you care about is making sure that the South never has a voice in the affairs of the country, ever again. So spare me the crocodile tears. And then after the South is dead, you plan on subjecting the rest of the country to the downright absurd politics of New York City and the Left Coast.

As a Yankee, I agree to keeping the southern bloc in check and liberating people exploited by the descendants of shameless oligarchs. What I do mind is taking down the "white man", as if we're all white devils. It's stupid shit like that which cost the DNC the Midlands and Western Yankeedom.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Demographics is destiny. And Democracy is governed by demographics.

White people don't have kids. But you have a democracy and allow people from other ethnic groups to become citizens. What did anyone honestly expect?

I don't care either way cause of the below:

Being frank, as I think of myself as something of a globalist but I don't approve of unlimited immigration cause eventually it leads to local population being displaced and the country no longer being that country. Like lets say, people from Saudi Arabia replace the native Japanese. Can what comes from that really be called Japan? No.

To me US is the exception, its a country of immigrants anyway. But thats just me.

But still, its so obvious at least to me what will happen if you don't maintain your numbers while allowing immigrants who do maintain and grow their numbers become citizens. Its mathematics.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Demographics is destiny. And Democracy is governed by demographics.

White people don't have kids. But you have a democracy and allow people from other ethnic groups to become citizens. What did anyone honestly expect?

I don't care either way cause of the below:


But still, its so obvious at least to me what will happen if you don't maintain your numbers while allowing immigrants who do maintain and grow their numbers become citizens. Its mathematics.

Okay, that is not exactly what has happened. While the left is not being forthright with us, neither is the right.

This is the national composition of the United States. Some of you all might have remembered a similar map of Afghanistan that I posted a while back, the reason why it could never have worked. What you see here is the cultures that have existed in the US, in all but two, going back centuries. These are the nations of the United States. The people who actually identify with each other.

El Norte was actually the first Euro-American cultural identity to have emerged in regards to North America. It once extended up into California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. When the four major nations of the US moved westward, they engulfed the most northern-eastern part of Texas. It was admittedly, impart an invited problem, as the El Norte sorely needed people and were happy to have them, but then it became a political issue for Mexico, this led to that, and then we took northern Mexico.

Far West America is its own thing, as is the Left Coast, but the primary detractors for the border is the two red nations there. Appalachia and Deep South basically do not get along too well with El Norte. The Deep South doesn't get along because its entire culture was based upon a caste society in which rich white oligarchs dominated the top, far below were the whites, and far below them were the blacks whom the rich oligarchs had enslaved. For obvious reasons, they don't want to do any mixing with El Norte and have traditionally used systematic governments to oppress the legal El Norte.

The Appalachian folk are a bit different. When you call to image the lolbertaian dimwit with a shotgun in one hand and the Stars and Stripes in the other--that's basically the Appalachian folk. They're the descendants of immigrant Northern Ireland, Scotland, and norther England. Left a war zone, were poorly educated, very aggressive, and for centuries their most common form of currency was whisky (no joke). They aren't dedicated, cultured racists like the Deep South was, but they were never fans of non-whites. Gave birth to the KKK and all. At their worst, the Appalachian folk are white trash. At their best, they're actually where the US draws its soldiers.

Now, the past few decades have seen these two nations moderate their views on race, so you don't see so much of the lynching in the better parts of these nations, but even there, they are NOT going to accept a sudden rush of El Norte, especially if they think those El Norte are going to cost them the voting power of Texas. Because unless El Norte sides with them (and so far they fucking don't), then the south would be locked in subservience to the north. That's before you take into account the demographic shifts in the Deep South. And all those rich oligarchs will have their wealth taken and more fairly redistributed across the people there.

So Deep South and Appalachia are trying to pass this off as "they're trying to replace us!" and I expect lots of people believe it. In reality, it's a push back from El Norte. And even within the Deep South, this has a two-fold problem. On the one hand, their elites have exploited that cheap labor for decades (among outsourcing north factories they controlled to China) and as they've grown as a voting bloc, the GOP/Deep South Elites, have TRIED to shift their position, but the base isn't having it. They've been carrying the elites on their backs for centuries and they see this as them being tossed out like yesterday's trash in favor of a new class of people who can be more easily exploited.

 

[Big Steve]

I find that map interesting from the perspective of reading William Freehling's works on the Civil War and the forces that led up to it, since he also spoke of the cultural differences within the antebellum South, even within specific states (Virginia's frequent internal dissensions over the power of the Tidewater aristocracy and challenges to it from the trans-Allegheny, aka future West Virginia).

But I have nothing to say currently about the topic at hand.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I find that map interesting from the perspective of reading William Freehling's works on the Civil War and the forces that led up to it, since he also spoke of the cultural differences within the antebellum South, even within specific states (Virginia's frequent internal dissensions over the power of the Tidewater aristocracy and challenges to it from the trans-Allegheny, aka future West Virginia).

But I have nothing to say currently about the topic at hand.

Appalachia cares first and foremost about their freedoms. Of all the nations, they are the least organized in their view. During the Revolutionary War, they fought more as stat-local groups concerned with their freedom within the immediate vicinity. The people within Appalachia targeted either the nearby nation as their enemy during the war or they targeted the British Crown. In fact, the southern portion of Appalachia fought against the Deep South during the Revolution until the British's established a foothold and slaughtered an unruly Appalachia group.

Civil War was much the same, but lots of Appalachians fought against the Deep South. At that time, the Southerners had been deeply offended by the idea that they could not own slaves and insisted that not only should they have negro slaves, but they should enslave all lesser people below their station, as was God's will in their mind. The Appalachians really had no illusions as to who they meant. Of course, the Southerners also persuaded some that secession was a matter of state rights, which won over some of the Appalachians, for obvious reasons.

Most of the US's history has actually been a struggle between the Yankees in the north and the Deep South along the Gulf of Mexico.

Oddly enough though, I think the conflict has taken on a new dimension. The SJW Progressive movement was basically birthed in New York City and has spread the ideology through colleges and created small enclaves across Yankee and Left Coast territories, which was somewhat welcomed by the descended puritans, who have always tried to lecture others about morality and force social improvements upon the country, but with the SJW flavor.

So now the old Yankee coalition is being led by New Netherlands and the Left Coast (which added a Green and Hispanic flavor). But if you look at the 2016 voter turnout and with this filter, Trump's victory is very interesting. Now, there is also a rural vs urban dimension to this, as well as a racial dimension, but I think this is important to look at.

Remember, the nations within these areas tend to move within lockstep of each other, generally ignoring state lines. Trump's victory coalition is the Deep South, New France, Greater Appalachia, the Midlands, Western Yankeedom, and the Far West. His opposing nations are El Norte, the Left Coast, Eastern Yankeedom, New Netherlands, and Tidewater. Spanish Caribbean was actually split between them.

That's actually notable and it matches his politics.

1. Deep South -- Trump has supported a border in hopes of preventing El Norte from reclaiming more of its land. The old racial tensions, even if it isn't any sort of overt racism, matters a great deal the Deep South. They don't want a bunch of "foreigners" overrunning the lands they obtained. In addition to that, Trump supports anti-abortion measures, which the strong religious groups of the South appreciated.
2. Greater Appalachia -- Similar reasons exist for Appalachia as it does for the Deep South, but in addition to that, Trump is a strong supporter of the military and specifically of "our troops". Since Appalachia is where the US draws most of its soldiers from, you can guess who appreciated that the most.
3. Western Yankeedom -- There was a great deal of pre-vote polling suggesting Trump would lose. The shy Trump supporter was a rumor that had flown around the internet for months before the election. I think this is where you'd find most of them and why it was such a shock. It was simply assumed that the tone-policing Puritans would embrace Clinton over a brash Trump. And it was a close race, but I think the promise of jobs help swung them. These states have suffered heavily from globalism. Not exactly a good look when companies are making record profits off third world countries and letting their people starve back home.
4. Midlanders -- Again, I think the job promises is what swung it. That and the constant attempts by New Netherlands and the Left Coast to impose morality upon them, which the Midlanders always hated.
5. Far West -- Trump made lots of speeches about military production. The Far West is basically where companies run the government and the people there generally don't complain because they get paid well. The Far West has always tried to obtain government funding without government interference. Trump promising to build new fighters, new warships, and other goodies drew them over.

In contrast...

1. New Netherlands -- Ironically, this is where Trump is from. New Netherlands is the birthplace of the SJWs and have exported it across the nation. I suspect that their strongest influences are in Eastern Yankeedom, Tidewater, and the Left Coast. Ever since its inception, New Netherlands was about tolerance. In its early days, it had something like thirty ethnic grous, and a dozen different spoken languages. It was the least reliable ally of the Yankees in America. It supported slave trading Deep South in its early days because of "tolerance" (and profit), supported the British Crown during the Revolutionary War, and were the least willing to go to war over slaves until the South attacked first. It was also a shocking place in the 20th century for not having curbed atheism, open homosexuality, and many other practices. New Netherlands has always been a place of tolerance, not necessarily morality. Which I think explains the movements we see now. I think New Netherlands exported its ideology via universities and colleges--infecting the rest of the nation with its nonsense.
2. Left Coast -- Had always been heavily influenced by the Yankees and hence, the long-time alliance. It also however, took on a Green political flavor. What is most interesting is that the Left Coast has come to resemble New Netherlands. I think this is for two-fold reasons. The first is that the immigration of many ethnic groups created the same situation in the Left Coast as it did in New Netherlands. From the Asians from the West to El Norte moving up north again, it's the same formula. Second, I think New Netherlands was happy to exchange intellectual groups to encourage that mindset. I predict that New Netherlands and the Left Coast will move in lockstep with each other now.
3. Eastern Yankeedom -- In my mind, has lost grave amounts of territory to New Netherlands. I think between migration and proximity to the smaller state, Eastern Yankeedom has taken on the same beliefs, to some extent, but I admit I have no data to back this up. It may also not be a deep enough change; it may snap back in the future.
4. El Norte -- Really is not going to like the idea of a President who has bashed so many of their countrymen and wants to build a wall that will essentially cut off the top portion of their nation. And you can see across the board they resisted Trump. Trump has tried to make some inroads on the religious allure and by generally targeting only criminals for deportation, but I don't think it will be enough. I don't think El Norte likes the coalition it's in; far too secular. But then again, the other nations are either actively trying to either expel it or break it in two, so it has little choice in the matter.
5. Tidewater -- Tidewater enjoys its low labor. Even now, there are lots of "guest workers" from other countries brought over to Tidewater. All so they can avoid paying proper wages. Right now though, I think Tidewater has allied itself with New Netherlands not because it particularly cares for their social beliefs (although many here do espouse them), but I think generally for economic reasons. Trump's policies of protectionism means Tidewater's elites have to pay more.

I think 2020 will break down along these lines, but there are some special notes. Specifically that the Deep South is also run by oligarchs who want to keep their money, who aren't happy with Trump's attempts at protectionism. That's the whole "Never Trumper" group right there. They disguise it under other things, but I think it's going to be interesting to see what they do. On the one hand, they can still expand into Mexico, but then they might not think it worthwhile. And they may also resent Trump for cutting off their attempt to obtain El Norte for their side. Still, I think their sense of honor and concern for a growing El Norte will keep them in line. The base basically rejected the elite in 2016 and will probably do so in 2020.

I also don't think it's any coincidence that the front runners for the DNC are all from either the Midlands or Yankeedom. Warren (Michigan), and Biden (Pennsylvania). I think it's the more moderate aspects of the DNC alliance trying to put forth a compromise candidate that the Midlands and Western Yankeedom can accept. Problem is, I think they've been spoiled.

Booker and Sanders come to mind. Sanders is so far left that Warren, his direct competitor, has had to match him, if not exceed him. She's basically a Yankee trying to win over the Left Coast and New Netherlands to her side. Booker I think, is even worse, because he's a hardcore Dutch Douche who desperately wants to push Yankees over and Dutch in the light. And to do that, he's trying to focus on the angle of New Netherlands, Left Coast, and El Norte. If he can swing them on his side, Yankees within the DNC have to capitulate. Problem is that's an uphill battle, because half the Yankee nation left in 2016. Biden looks both so old and feeble that I don't think he'll poll as well as some might hope he will based on policy. Especially given Trump's aggressive posture on trade was what drove a split to begin with.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Appalachia cares first and foremost about their freedoms. Of all the nations, they are the least organized in their view. During the Revolutionary War, they fought more as stat-local groups concerned with their freedom within the immediate vicinity. The people within Appalachia targeted either the nearby nation as their enemy during the war or they targeted the British Crown. In fact, the southern portion of Appalachia fought against the Deep South during the Revolution until the British's established a foothold and slaughtered an unruly Appalachia group.

Civil War was much the same, but lots of Appalachians fought against the Deep South. At that time, the Southerners had been deeply offended by the idea that they could not own slaves and insisted that not only should they have negro slaves, but they should enslave all lesser people below their station, as was God's will in their mind. The Appalachians really had no illusions as to who they meant. Of course, the Southerners also persuaded some that secession was a matter of state rights, which won over some of the Appalachians, for obvious reasons.

Most of the US's history has actually been a struggle between the Yankees in the north and the Deep South along the Gulf of Mexico.

Oddly enough though, I think the conflict has taken on a new dimension. The SJW Progressive movement was basically birthed in New York City and has spread the ideology through colleges and created small enclaves across Yankee and Left Coast territories, which was somewhat welcomed by the descended puritans, who have always tried to lecture others about morality and force social improvements upon the country, but with the SJW flavor.

So now the old Yankee coalition is being led by New Netherlands and the Left Coast (which added a Green and Hispanic flavor). But if you look at the 2016 voter turnout and with this filter, Trump's victory is very interesting. Now, there is also a rural vs urban dimension to this, as well as a racial dimension, but I think this is important to look at.

Remember, the nations within these areas tend to move within lockstep of each other, generally ignoring state lines. Trump's victory coalition is the Deep South, New France, Greater Appalachia, the Midlands, Western Yankeedom, and the Far West. His opposing nations are El Norte, the Left Coast, Eastern Yankeedom, New Netherlands, and Tidewater. Spanish Caribbean was actually split between them.

That's actually notable and it matches his politics.

1. Deep South -- Trump has supported a border in hopes of preventing El Norte from reclaiming more of its land. The old racial tensions, even if it isn't any sort of overt racism, matters a great deal the Deep South. They don't want a bunch of "foreigners" overrunning the lands they obtained. In addition to that, Trump supports anti-abortion measures, which the strong religious groups of the South appreciated.
2. Greater Appalachia -- Similar reasons exist for Appalachia as it does for the Deep South, but in addition to that, Trump is a strong supporter of the military and specifically of "our troops". Since Appalachia is where the US draws most of its soldiers from, you can guess who appreciated that the most.
3. Western Yankeedom -- There was a great deal of pre-vote polling suggesting Trump would lose. The shy Trump supporter was a rumor that had flown around the internet for months before the election. I think this is where you'd find most of them and why it was such a shock. It was simply assumed that the tone-policing Puritans would embrace Clinton over a brash Trump. And it was a close race, but I think the promise of jobs help swung them. These states have suffered heavily from globalism. Not exactly a good look when companies are making record profits off third world countries and letting their people starve back home.
4. Midlanders -- Again, I think the job promises is what swung it. That and the constant attempts by New Netherlands and the Left Coast to impose morality upon them, which the Midlanders always hated.
5. Far West -- Trump made lots of speeches about military production. The Far West is basically where companies run the government and the people there generally don't complain because they get paid well. The Far West has always tried to obtain government funding without government interference. Trump promising to build new fighters, new warships, and other goodies drew them over.

In contrast...

1. New Netherlands -- Ironically, this is where Trump is from. New Netherlands is the birthplace of the SJWs and have exported it across the nation. I suspect that their strongest influences are in Eastern Yankeedom, Tidewater, and the Left Coast. Ever since its inception, New Netherlands was about tolerance. In its early days, it had something like thirty ethnic grous, and a dozen different spoken languages. It was the least reliable ally of the Yankees in America. It supported slave trading Deep South in its early days because of "tolerance" (and profit), supported the British Crown during the Revolutionary War, and were the least willing to go to war over slaves until the South attacked first. It was also a shocking place in the 20th century for not having curbed atheism, open homosexuality, and many other practices. New Netherlands has always been a place of tolerance, not necessarily morality. Which I think explains the movements we see now. I think New Netherlands exported its ideology via universities and colleges--infecting the rest of the nation with its nonsense.
2. Left Coast -- Had always been heavily influenced by the Yankees and hence, the long-time alliance. It also however, took on a Green political flavor. What is most interesting is that the Left Coast has come to resemble New Netherlands. I think this is for two-fold reasons. The first is that the immigration of many ethnic groups created the same situation in the Left Coast as it did in New Netherlands. From the Asians from the West to El Norte moving up north again, it's the same formula. Second, I think New Netherlands was happy to exchange intellectual groups to encourage that mindset. I predict that New Netherlands and the Left Coast will move in lockstep with each other now.
3. Eastern Yankeedom -- In my mind, has lost grave amounts of territory to New Netherlands. I think between migration and proximity to the smaller state, Eastern Yankeedom has taken on the same beliefs, to some extent, but I admit I have no data to back this up. It may also not be a deep enough change; it may snap back in the future.
4. El Norte -- Really is not going to like the idea of a President who has bashed so many of their countrymen and wants to build a wall that will essentially cut off the top portion of their nation. And you can see across the board they resisted Trump. Trump has tried to make some inroads on the religious allure and by generally targeting only criminals for deportation, but I don't think it will be enough. I don't think El Norte likes the coalition it's in; far too secular. But then again, the other nations are either actively trying to either expel it or break it in two, so it has little choice in the matter.
5. Tidewater -- Tidewater enjoys its low labor. Even now, there are lots of "guest workers" from other countries brought over to Tidewater. All so they can avoid paying proper wages. Right now though, I think Tidewater has allied itself with New Netherlands not because it particularly cares for their social beliefs (although many here do espouse them), but I think generally for economic reasons. Trump's policies of protectionism means Tidewater's elites have to pay more.

I think 2020 will break down along these lines, but there are some special notes. Specifically that the Deep South is also run by oligarchs who want to keep their money, who aren't happy with Trump's attempts at protectionism. That's the whole "Never Trumper" group right there. They disguise it under other things, but I think it's going to be interesting to see what they do. On the one hand, they can still expand into Mexico, but then they might not think it worthwhile. And they may also resent Trump for cutting off their attempt to obtain El Norte for their side. Still, I think their sense of honor and concern for a growing El Norte will keep them in line. The base basically rejected the elite in 2016 and will probably do so in 2020.

I also don't think it's any coincidence that the front runners for the DNC are all from either the Midlands or Yankeedom. Warren (Michigan), and Biden (Pennsylvania). I think it's the more moderate aspects of the DNC alliance trying to put forth a compromise candidate that the Midlands and Western Yankeedom can accept. Problem is, I think they've been spoiled.

Booker and Sanders come to mind. Sanders is so far left that Warren, his direct competitor, has had to match him, if not exceed him. She's basically a Yankee trying to win over the Left Coast and New Netherlands to her side. Booker I think, is even worse, because he's a hardcore Dutch Douche who desperately wants to push Yankees over and Dutch in the light. And to do that, he's trying to focus on the angle of New Netherlands, Left Coast, and El Norte. If he can swing them on his side, Yankees within the DNC have to capitulate. Problem is that's an uphill battle, because half the Yankee nation left in 2016. Biden looks both so old and feeble that I don't think he'll poll as well as some might hope he will based on policy. Especially given Trump's aggressive posture on trade was what drove a split to begin with.

I like your analysis. Paints a bigger picture as to how Trump won. He clearly knew who to target.

 

[Doomsought]

So Deep South and Appalachia are trying to pass this off as "they're trying to replace us!" and I expect lots of people believe it.

Well, it is because there are various groups in the far left that say outright that they want to replace whites with minorities because diversity.


The white mans burden polotics that never went away in the democratic party have mutated into a hatred for white people.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Well, it is because there are various groups in the far left that say outright that they want to replace whites with minorities because diversity.


The white mans burden polotics that never went away in the democratic party have mutated into a hatred for white people.

You should link her video, not the one Sargon linked. Although admittedly, his might have been more tolerable. Problem is that he would shape the narrative. More importantly, he would be shaping a British narrative, not an American one.

In any case, the "journalist" doing this is an obvious propaganda puppet. Born in Argentina, I might add. So we can see why her passion for immigrants closer to her is something she prefers. But it's not really any use talking to a puppet, less you wish to subvert it. In this case, she's handled by AJ+ or Al Jazeera, which is a propaganda machine for the State of Qatar.

Given Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and growing ties with China, it's no surprise that they're trying to take out Trump. Trump has supported Israel, undermined terrorist movement to the United States (Qatar's terrorists), left Qatar to its own devices when the Saudi's tender mercy, looks to be wanting to leave the Middle East (and taking all that US money with him), and has an ongoing trade war with one of their close partners; China.

AJ+ might have shoved their hand up this chick's ass and made her speak in the New Dutch/Left Coast style, but their primary motivation is to break the Western Yankees from Trump by accusing him of racism and reviving the old Deep Southern oligarch style of government. The Yankees have always feared oligarchs would conquer them and destroy their aspiring utopia on Earth. Ever since they were strict Puritans.

That isn't the Left speaking. It's not even the Far Left speaking. It's Qatar looking out for its national interests.

Qatar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org