For what it's worth, essentially every main view surface was visually redesigned over the course of the last 2 years. So while I can't promise you'll like the new design, it certainly isn't the same as it was 2 years ago.
One of the other nice features of the new design implementation is there are handy settings for font size and line spacing. It turns out that different people have very different desires for how dense content is in chat apps, and empirically there's a significant portion of users with just about every combination.
While true, then I'd just skip installing these products and find another way. And if this is the only way and the product is important (say, brew), make an exception.
Summary: legal immigration is very difficult to impossible.
The solution, IMO, isn't "just enter illegally". When you're not a citizen then, quite frankly, the fact that you want to immigrate doesn't matter. It's the country that says whether you should get in or not.
People have wanted to do the same with abortion and medicare for all as well (both of which poll very highly) and yet neither of these popular policies are law.
It's a bit rich to be talking about ripping the law apart when we have an authoritarian in office and regular citizens are being executed on the streets.
Even if you think ICE is the answer, which frankly it's not and even a second of introspection will reveal this, you cannot just pretend that the current situation is desirable.
The undeniable reality is that this administration has absolutely no intention of ending illegal immigration. None. They intend to expand the police state, shut down dissent, and bring the US into a fascist state.
You want to end illegal immigration? Fine. Just start locking up executives who hire undocumented people. It's easy, about 1000x easier than ICE, and much, MUCH less expensive.
Will the Republicans ever propose anything even close to this? No. Because the reality is that that would immediately implode the economy of most red states, and they can't do that to their constituency. I mean, the red states that don't already have a shit economy.
Besides, you cant rage against the machine if you destroy the machine. They NEED illegal immigration for their fascist wet dream. Without that justification for surveillance and violence, they have nothing left.
Look, at the end of the day the only thing keeping states like Georgia from going under, besides the welfare of more economically successful blue states, is a steady supply of cheap labor willing to do dirty work. Even Texas, for Christ's sake, is only economically successful because of, like, 3 blue little dots. They're like Atlas carrying the economy of Texas on their shoulders. Outside of that it's... you guessed it, cheap labor doing dirty work!
Not all immigration is created equal. There's the economic migration and asylum seekers. Those are 2 distinct groups of people with different motives.
For the true asylum seekers, that feat for their life wherever they're from for example, the laws of the country they're entering just don't matter. If it's a choice between life as an illegal or death I think we would all choose life.
For the economic cases, sure. That's where the legal immigration system applies. And I agree with what you said about rules and each country gets to decide.
> It's the law of the land that determines how well are you doing once inside.
That continues to become less true, in the cruelest ways [1]:
> One man told KBI that Border Patrol agents tore his birth certificate up in front of him. He managed to save his Mexican identity card because he had hidden it in his shoe.
Crime rate has been going down for 30 consecutive years (except during COVID). Immigrants (legal or otherwise) commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. "It seems" is doing a lot of work in your comment.
I don't believe 2025 crime statistics have been released yet, it would take several years of data to conclusively establish a trend, and even if the data did show that, correlation does not equal causation. What does your heart tell you?
Why hedge with "from what I've understood" if you're confident that you're actually talking about reality? Rather, it sounds more like a deliberate badge of ignorance.
I did point out that your sentence is false (its framing would have to be honest for its opposite to be true), and also that your sentence structure indicates that you well know it.
The last time I stuck with it and went around in circles with your low-effort leading comments, you eventually just dropped the conversation. Given that I pointed our your framing here is not-even-wrong and yet you're doubling down on it, I don't foresee continuing this exchange being any more productive.
He's done this fucked in the head stupidity with me too, he says utterly random not-even-wrong things out of his ass and keeps mindlessly repeating them as if he didn't hear anything when asked to cite actual case law or statistics. He has literally no idea how American legal system works and makes up absurd crap like filming cops is illegal or makes up crap about ICE agents having "court orders". When I cornered him on this asking him how many were actual court orders and how many legally null internal ICE "Karen" warrants proving he has no fucking idea, he kept repeating his retardation in circles. He still doesn't seem to understand the idea that police cannot and is not granted any powers to decide what is illegal, that is a matter of the courts. He also cited some absurd crap about deportations reducing crime again showing he is making up absurd crap out of his ass, for in many studies immigrants are shown to commit less crimes so deportation would increase the per capita crime rate.
Crime rate has shot up violently. It just isn't being recorded right now. But it will be in future and the perpetrators dealt with, including if necessary by hanging.
Edit 2: Before reading on don't bother, this person isn't American so has no understanding of what the words they are typing mean in the American system, that immigration judges aren't Article III criminal judges, that immigration violations are civil violations not criminal, etc.
Being honest/truthful really doesn't matter to you folks, does it? You made a claim that was bullshit to try and sway people. And are willing to sacrifice the unimportant 'due process' that we have in the USA. You all really believe in nothing, and especially don't believe in America.
Edit: You are trying to confuse/blend 'deporting criminals' to be something other than the American understanding of criminal, and you know it. I'm not wasting further time on your bad faith word spinning. You don't understand/care about the American system, you just want to abuse words to paint a false picture. Sad that we have so many people like you in our country that don't' understand it/believe in it, and would give up the security we tried to build into it at the cost of blood for your personal short term political reasons.
Isn't "due process" for an illegal immigrant already happened in the sense that they are determined to be an illegal?
Trump had deporting illegals in his campaign and got mandate from the people. You don't seem to believe in democracy instead.
Edit: The note about pending charges is just a note. Trump's platform was to deport all illegal immigrants, not only who have been convicted of other crimes as well (they did start with the convicted though). You don't need to waste time, but you need to be able to point to where the bad faith arguments and word spinning are. To me it looks like the democrats are mobilizing those who don't quite understand what losing an election means in a democratic country. If your view is that American system is something else, e.g, "only what the Democratic wants to do should be done", then you would need to push this through your system.
You talk about America yet don't understand our most basic concept of law. "These people just haven't been convicted - yet." is so fucking anti-American it's crazy to see someone just drop it as a rebuttal here.
You added that after your claim: "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals"
You then try to wordsmith criminal into to 'illegal immigrants'. These people are being deported on Civil law violations. Not criminal. If it was criminal ICE wouldn't be able to use immigration courts and their special carvouts for not following the constitution. You don't seem to understand any American basic civics in addition to your not understanding your own statement 'ICE is also deporting mostly criminals'
You're further expanding makes your original statement obvious bad faith spin that wasn't true and that you didn't actually care about.
I have never been registered as a Democrat in my life, and was libertarian for the majority of it. Again you ignorantly make statements you have zero idea are true or not. Democracy isn't 'I won, I get to throw away the system of laws and violate the constitution'.
Edit: Got it, by saying "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals" what you meant was everyone they deport they have determined (in Immigration court and by immigration judges not real Article III judges on civil violations and not in Criminal court under criminal law violations sentenced by real Article III Judges) 'are criminals'. You don't understand American civics. You don't understand the definition of the word 'criminal'. You don't understand Democracy doesn't mean 'free to do whatever you want when elected' mob rule.
Right. The original poster who was saying that only ("only"!) 29% of January deportees have been convicted, that is correct. To this I added that that percentage doesn't account for ongoing charges (also true, right?). No disagreement in the percentage arguments.
The rest of the immigrants are still illegally in the country, no? Wasn't deporting them on the campaign platform that got the mandate? What is "the system" if not this?
If your interpretation of the constitution is that as long as you are "protesting" then you can do anything, be anywhere, including whistle along an ongoing police operation then I can tell you that that interpretation is not correct. If it were, any criminal (not need be immigrant) would say that they were "protesting", while robbing a store or doing any other random actually criminal thing.
Edit: I get what you are saying, too, but the practical solution isn't to keep current illegal immigrants in, as in that case anyone attempting to enter legally should just switch to enter illegally as that is more efficient. (I.e, if there is some country-wide entry rate, then the currently illegally entered have succeeded by jumping the line.)
The above is also the platform that was voted into office not long ago. This does look like democracy to me.
What mandate? Trump did not secure a large enough victory for anyone to reasonably claim he was handed a mandate. Did the Republicans ever respect Biden's "mandate" on his issues, with a similar EV victory and a huge popular vote victory? Hell, Trump didn't even get half the popular vote.
Nor do single issues get mandates even when a president does have an overwhelming victory. Voters do not select specific issues to vote on, they vote for a person based on their overall platform.
Trump also talked about how he was going to focus on deporting violent criminals. And now that that is no longer the case, the goalpost is being moved to... any crimes. And now again to anyone that has outstanding charges, but no conviction. And now it's hey, they're here illegally, so that's a crime, right! We'll have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of those being deported also entered using a legal process that puts them in limbo - ICE has been grabbing people showing up at their immigration court cases.
I'd call it the presidential victory mandate. I guess he shouldn't actually do what he promised as the victory wasn't large enough? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
This country isn't one that respects mandates over the laws, and even within the laws there are a lot of mechanisms that are meant to force the building of consensus between both parties (or rather, across congress as a whole, since they didn't assume a two party system). These have fallen apart to a significant degree with the rise of unitary executive power over the past half century, but that obviously was outside of the framers' intent.
What people call a mandate has been when a position actually has been popular enough that it could be acted on quickly without opposition. The very fact that there is so much opposition to this, that the polling is so bad, that the protests are so widespread, that the negative feedback is so frequent even within the Republican party quite explicitly shows that there is no mandate here.
But again:
If Trump's victory was enough to secure a mandate, why didn't a similar EV victory and significantly larger popular vote victory secure one for Biden?
Why would a mandate based on deporting violent criminals apply to people without convictions? To people showing up at their court cases as they go through a legal process where they did follow all the rules?
W̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶d̶d̶y̶.̶ We were founded on the fucking Boston Tea Party. Yeah, we trade off conveniences in policing for freedom of the people. I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶v̶e̶. There are plenty of non-freedom loving countries out there.
I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶r̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶i̶v̶i̶c̶s̶. You seem kind of ignorant to like the basic premise of our nation or how/why we arrived at it.
Edit: My bad for being hard on you. I assumed you were American and we were talking from a common framework of understanding. American democracy was created to prevent mob rule, not enable it. You can run on whatever you want, it doesn't mean that what you run on is allowed under our system of laws, even if popular with the mob. Most of our families were forced to flee to the USA because 'the mob' wanted us dead, or to criminalize our existence, or force us to change religions. WE FUCKING HATE MOB RULE, AND WE FUCKING HATE KINGS WITH UNCHECKED POWER. Immigration law is not criminal law in the USA (it's a loophole to apply lower standards than the Constitution requires). Immigration courts aren't finding someone as being a criminal, they are finding a civil law violation. Immigration judges aren't real judges. Article III Judges are real judges as empowered by the Constitution.
I don't live in the US. Also I edited my parent answer (but no need to edit yours. Continue below at will.)
I maintain that what was voted in the office a year ago was to deport the illegals, not only those who have committed other crimes as well. I might just as well say that you are ignorant of the democratic process instead. And if you think that the US will be a "free entry" country as it was after the discovery of the continent then I guess you live at a part of the country where the newly arrived immigrants aren't disturbing your life yet.
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
Btw, do you happen to know, why electrek.co changed their tune in such a way? I was commenting on a similarly negative story by the same site, and said that they are always anti-Tesla. But then somebody pointed out that this wasn't always the case, that they were actually supportive, but then suddenly turned.
Fred Lambert was an early Tesla evangelist - he constantly wrote stories praising Tesla and Elon for years. He had some interactions with Elon on Twitter, got invited to Tesla events, referred enough people to earn free Tesla cars, etc.
If we assume the best (per HN guidelines): Up to about 2018 Tesla was the market-leading EV company, and the whole thesis of Electrek is that EVs are the future. So, of course they covered Tesla frequently and in a generally positive light.
Since then, the facts have changed. Elon's become increasingly erratic, and has been making increasingly unhinged claims about Tesla's current and future products. At the same time, Tesla's offerings are far behind domestic standards, which are even further behind international competition. Also, many people have died due to obvious Tesla design flaws (like the door handles, and false advertising around FSD).
Journalistic integrity explains the difference in coverage over the years. Coverage from any fact-based outlet would have a similar shift in sentiment.
reply