Daily Mail: Kristi Noem's ICE hiring chaos laid bare as fat, illiterate and violent misfits 'not ready to tie their own laces' are recruited

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 8:39 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
It wasn't a pervasive widespread thing in the 80's.

From my understanding, the "Sanctuary" movement of the 80's was basically just San Fran & LA and a few commuter cities in those areas, and remained a relatively niche sort of thing until the bigger expansion started in the mid 2010's.

Looking at lists of sanctuary cities, I don't see many that declared themselves as such in 2016, let alone the back half of the year. There were the initial few in the '70s and '80s, then another wave around the late 2000s/early 2010s, and the big influx in 2017 and 2018 in response to Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 8:41 AM

iluvatar5150 said:
Mayors, DA's, and AG's are parts of those "agencies" -arguably the most important parts- whom you ought not antagonize if you want their help.

It's not hard to imagine ways in which ICE could have altered their approach to assuage some of the concerns of these blue states and increase cooperation.

But wouldn't there have to be a reasonable "meeting in the middle" point available/possible in order to do that?

For instance, in the case of Mayor Frey...

ICE position: "We're tasked with removing illegal immigrants"

Frey's position: "My progressive fan base doesn't even like the idea of deporting anyone, doesn't think there should even be such a designation of illegal, and thinks the agency's very mission is racist, and that the agency should be disbanded"

The #AbolishICE hashtag movement started in early 2017, and the ramp up of cities claiming sanctuary status happened in the final year of Obama's term.

Where can you find middle ground on that? There's no assuaging those types of concerns/objections when the two entities are that far apart ideologically.

It's not like a tax policy negotiations where it can be a "Well, I think it should be 28%, you say 38%, let's meet int he middle at 33%" type of thing.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 8:47 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
But wouldn't there have to be a reasonable "meeting in the middle" point available/possible in order to do that?

For instance, in the case of Mayor Frey...

ICE position: "We're tasked with removing illegal immigrants"

Frey's position: "My progressive fan base doesn't even like the idea of deporting anyone, doesn't think there should even be such a designation of illegal, and thinks the agency's very mission is racist, and that the agency should be disbanded"

Is that an actual position of his or merely your characterization of it?

ThatRobGuy said:
The #AbolishICE hashtag movement started in early 2017, and the ramp up of cities claiming sanctuary status happened in the final year of Obama's term.

Source?

ThatRobGuy said:
Where can you find middle ground on that? There's no assuaging those types of concerns/objections when the two entities are that far apart ideologically.

It's not like a tax policy negotiations where it can be a "Well, I think it should be 28%, you say 38%, let's meet int he middle at 33%" type of thing.

"We're only asking for help with removing violent criminals or alleged violent criminals" strikes me as a pretty obvious middle ground.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 8:54 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
The #AbolishICE hashtag movement started in early 2017, and the ramp up of cities claiming sanctuary status happened in the final year of Obama's term.

Have you perhaps forgotten that 2016, not 2018, was the final year of Obama's second term?

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 9:12 AM

RocksInMyHead said:
Looking at lists of sanctuary cities, I don't see many that declared themselves as such in 2016, let alone the back half of the year. There were the initial few in the '70s and '80s, then another wave around the late 2000s/early 2010s, and the big influx in 2017 and 2018 in response to Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Seattle, Spokane, Boston, Washington DC, and Chicago had all strengthened their sanctuary policies during the 2nd half of Obama's presidency.

The cooperation erosion I mentioned was in regards to the Secure Communities program being terminated in November of 2014. It was replaced by the PEP for the tail end of Obama's tenure. However, in that final year, a growing number of cities were refusing to enforce detainers under the PEP (which was supposed to be a "softer approach" to immigration enforcement by Obama's admin)

How Michael Nutter Changed Philadelphia’s Immigration Status

The two-term Mayor’s time in the top city exec’s seat is coming to an end. Will the next leader in city hall expand on his legacy of treating newcomers as an asset, and not a liability?

nextcity.org

There were several major city mayors that praised Jeh Johnsons revisions for addressing what they claimed some of their concerns were, but still declined to participate

As of August 2015, a month after the rollout began, many law enforcement agencies that had previously withdrawn from S-COMM were in talks with ICE and undecided about PEP. Philadelphia Mayor Michael E. Nutter, who had previously scaled back cooperation with DHS in April 2014, praised DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson for taking concerns into account when designing PEP, but was still not convinced that it made sense to participate.[37] Cook County Board of Commissions Toni Preckwinkle issued a statement with a similar sentiment.[37]

In October 2015, San Francisco's city government chose not to participate in PEP. This continued a tradition of San Francisco as a sanctuary city since 1989.[38]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dhs-finds-resistance-to-new-program-to-deport-illegal-immigrants/2015/08/03/4af5985c-36d0-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

And several other major cities followed suit over the following 12 months.

So that provides something we can make some inferences from.

The talk surrounding "If they would just use softer tactics, there wouldn't be pushback and cities would be more likely to cooperate" doesn't seem to hold much water.

Obama did exactly that. He replaced a program that was much more broad, with a more focused mission (which is the thing they claim they wanted "Don't go after everyone, just the more severe criminal"), and spent a lot of man hours developing the new program, only for those cities to say "Gee, we appreciate you listening to our concerns...but nah, we still don't want to collaborate in any deportations and want to remain sanctuary cities to appeal to our local voter bases"

If the entity is claiming to be upset over the approach and tactics, and Obama (someone they claimed to be a huge fan of) gift wraps them a policy revision that drastically reforms the approach and tactics, but they still decline, then that leads one to believe that they're not really that open to compromise on this one.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 9:15 AM

iluvatar5150 said:
Is that an actual position of his or merely your characterization of it?

Source?

"We're only asking for help with removing violent criminals or alleged violent criminals" strikes me as a pretty obvious middle ground.

RocksInMyHead said:
Have you perhaps forgotten that 2016, not 2018, was the final year of Obama's second term?

I address both of these in my most recent post (#85)

For the question about "Is that really Frey's position", can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I provided his quotes.

He's stated both "it's not our city's job to help enforce federal laws" and "ICE, get the <bleep> out, we don't want you in our city"
(meaning, "we're not going to enforce it, and we don't want you here enforcing it either" -- which one can surmise means "we don't wan this law enforced at all")

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 9:33 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
For the question about "Is that really Frey's position", can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I provided his quotes.

He's stated both "it's not our city's job to help enforce federal laws" and "ICE, get the <bleep> out, we don't want you in our city"
(meaning, "we're not going to enforce it, and we don't want you here enforcing it either" -- which one can surmise means "we don't wan this law enforced at all")

That's a far cry from ""My progressive fan base doesn't even like the idea of deporting anyone, doesn't think there should even be such a designation of illegal, and thinks the agency's very mission is racist, and that the agency should be disbanded"

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 9:54 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
So that provides something we can make some inferences from.

The talk surrounding "If they would just use softer tactics, there wouldn't be pushback and cities would be more likely to cooperate" doesn't seem to hold much water.

Per DHS's 2015 report, 16 of the top 25 jurisdictions for refused detainers, representing nearly half of all refused detainers in the country, were participating in the PEP by the end of the year. Notably, that includes Philadelphia - they changed their minds later in the year, after the article that you linked. That sounds like it was pretty successful, all things considered. Cities were more likely to cooperate. Not all of them, but a significant increase over the previous policy.

DHS Releases End of Fiscal Year 2015 Statistics | Homeland Security

Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 statistics which reflect the Department’s immigration enforcement efforts that prioritize convicted criminals and threats to public safety, border security, and national security.

www.dhs.gov

ThatRobGuy said:
Obama did exactly that. He replaced a program that was much more broad, with a more focused mission (which is the thing they claim they wanted "Don't go after everyone, just the more severe criminal"), and spent a lot of man hours developing the new program, only for those cities to say "Gee, we appreciate you listening to our concerns...but nah, we still don't want to collaborate in any deportations and want to remain sanctuary cities to appeal to our local voter bases"

If the entity is claiming to be upset over the approach and tactics, and Obama (someone they claimed to be a huge fan of) gift wraps them a policy revision that drastically reforms the approach and tactics, but they still decline, then that leads one to believe that they're not really that open to compromise on this one.

What I'm seeing is you moving the goalposts in three dimensions. First you claimed that mayors were looking to demonstrate resistance to the incoming Trump administration, but now you're talking about events in 2014 and 2015, long before Trump was seen as a serious candidate, let alone the presumptive president. And you're pointing to specific cities to illustrate a national-level lack of compliance with policy - ignoring the reality that the policy did increase compliance overall, even if some cities rejected it.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 12:48 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Per DHS's 2015 report, 16 of the top 25 jurisdictions for refused detainers, representing nearly half of all refused detainers in the country, were participating in the PEP by the end of the year. Notably, that includes Philadelphia - they changed their minds later in the year, after the article that you linked. That sounds like it was pretty successful, all things considered. Cities were more likely to cooperate. Not all of them, but a significant increase over the previous policy.

If the stats I'm seeing are correct:
By mid-late 2016, approximately 279 counties were declining to honor detainers, even under the supposedly more palatable PEP program.

And, the participation was inconsistent. For example, Los Angeles County agreed to join the program, but Los Angeles city would not participate; Baltimore's state-run jail and several Maryland counties agreed to comply with notification requests under PEP, but would not honor detainers.

It'd be like saying if there was a drug task force, and Cuyahoga County agreed to participate, but Cleveland would not. That's not as impactful since the problem in question is more highly concentrated in Cleveland, and not out in the burbs.

Same is true with this, LA County agreeing to participate is somewhat watered down, because it's not like the problem was heavily concentrated in Burbank and Pasadena... it's Los Angeles proper where the enforcement really needed to be happening.

RocksInMyHead said:
What I'm seeing is you moving the goalposts in three dimensions. First you claimed that mayors were looking to demonstrate resistance to the incoming Trump administration, but now you're talking about events in 2014 and 2015, long before Trump was seen as a serious candidate, let alone the presumptive president. And you're pointing to specific cities to illustrate a national-level lack of compliance with policy - ignoring the reality that the policy did increase compliance overall, even if some cities rejected it.

It's not moving the goalposts, two things can be true at once.

Mayors and City leaders can create (and expand) sanctuary policies both for the purposes of appealing to a progressive voter base, as well as perceiving it as a bulwark against an incoming administration.

The blue cities that were still refusing back in 2015 were likely more in the former, whereas the cities doing it at the tail end of 2016 were likely a little more motivated by the latter rationale.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 1:05 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
If the stats I'm seeing are correct:
By mid-late 2016, approximately 279 counties were declining to honor detainers, even under the supposedly more palatable PEP program.

Considering there are about 3300 counties in the country, that sounds pretty good - well over 90% participation.

ThatRobGuy said:
And, the participation was inconsistent. For example, Los Angeles County agreed to join the program, but Los Angeles city would not participate; Baltimore's state-run jail and several Maryland counties agreed to comply with notification requests under PEP, but would not honor detainers.

As I pointed out, the jurisdictions that agreed to join the PEP in 2015 represented nearly half of refused detainers from previous years. That's a significant improvement.

ThatRobGuy said:
It's not moving the goalposts, two things can be true at once.

Mayors and City leaders can create (and expand) sanctuary policies both for the purposes of appealing to a progressive voter base, as well as perceiving it as a bulwark against an incoming administration.

The blue cities that were still refusing back in 2015 were likely more in the former, whereas the cities doing it at the tail end of 2016 were likely a little more motivated by the latter rationale.

Or, novel thought, maybe it's neither, and they feel like sanctuary policies allow them to better serve their communities.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 1:41 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Considering there are about 3300 counties in the country, that sounds pretty good - well over 90% participation.

If the problem of illegal immigration was evenly distributed throughout the 3300 counties, then I'd agree...but obviously it's not.

Some random rural county in Iowa (who was likely complying with the old program anyway) agreeing to participate doesn't cancel out a major city refusing to participate.

Unauthorized Immigrants by Country/Region, Top States and Counties of Residence, 2023

This interactive map, drawing from MPI estimates, shows the top state and county destinations for unauthorized immigrants in the United States as of mid-2023, based on their country or region of origin.

www.migrationpolicy.org

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.migrationpolicy.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcontent-media%2F2025%2F10%2FMPI-2023_Unauthorized_Profiles-State-County-Topline_Estimates-FINAL.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

After you go past the top 280 counties, we're talking about places that have fewer than 1,000 undocumented individuals.

RocksInMyHead said:
As I pointed out, the jurisdictions that agreed to join the PEP in 2015 represented nearly half of refused detainers from previous years. That's a significant improvement.

As my reply pointed out

1) it wasn't consistent, a county can join, but a city can still refuse (LA County vs. LA City)
2) joining PEP doesn't = "honors detainer requests" (Like Baltimore)

Here's perhaps a more relevant set of stats:

Anthropic AI disclaimer, but the stats check out:

Top 10 Metro Areas by Undocumented Population (2016):

New York - 1.1 million
Los Angeles - 925,000
Houston - ~575,000
Dallas-Fort Worth - ~475,000
Miami - ~450,000
Chicago - ~425,000
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
San Francisco
San Diego
Washington, D.C.

How many were participating in PEP?

Based on the evidence, very few, if any, of the top 10 cities with the largest undocumented populations were fully participating in PEP by 2016.

Here's what I found:

According to the National Immigration Law Center in 2016, Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, San Francisco, and San Diego (4 of the top 10) were not participating.
Jurisdictions like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and Washington, DC were identified as cities that, while participating with certain aspects of the program, refused to honor detainer requests - or initially complied, but then reversed course shortly thereafter.

So the answer is: At most 1-2 out of the top 10 (and possibly zero) were fully cooperating with PEP by mid-2016, with most maintaining sanctuary policies and declining to honor detainer requests despite the more agreeable PEP program.

RocksInMyHead said:
Or, novel thought, maybe it's neither, and they feel like sanctuary policies allow them to better serve their communities.

And they just so happened to come to that revelation amid the rise of the other social justice movements as well?

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 2:06 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
As my reply pointed out

1) it wasn't consistent, a county can join, but a city can still refuse (LA County vs. LA City)
2) joining PEP doesn't = "honors detainer requests" (Like Baltimore)

Neither of those are relevant - DHS specifically stated that 16 of the 25 jurisdictions (that would separate cities and counties) with the largest number of declined retainers, representing 47% of previously refused detainer requests, were participating in PEP. And #2 is moving the goalposts.

ThatRobGuy said:
And they just so happened to come to that revelation amid the rise of the other social justice movements as well?

That is generally how the human brain functions - we tend to think about related things together.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 3:13 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Neither of those are relevant - DHS specifically stated that 16 of the 25 jurisdictions (that would separate cities and counties) with the largest number of declined retainers, representing 47% of previously refused detainer requests, were participating in PEP.

But what I was highlighting was that there's a pretty big drop off after that top 10...

Per my previous post in the part that you didn't add to the quote, 8 of the top 10 cities (by undocumented population in 2016) were not participating.

The cities were this is the largest issue are the ones that didn't want to do business even with the softened Obama approach to it.

The stat you're presenting basically just means that some of the small to midsize cities (that didn't have the significant populations of undocumented folks) that weren't participating before, did.

I don't see where they're specifying what those "16 out of the 25 jurisdictions" were. The fact that the stats I provided show that eight of the top 10 were not participating, means that the ones they got on board were probably smaller, less significant, cities (with regards to illegal immigrant populations)

"Are Los Angeles, New York City or Chicago on board? No... But great news! Toledo, OH and Burlington, VT said they're totally in now!"

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 3:22 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
But what I was highlighting was that there's a pretty big drop off after that top 10...

Per my previous post in the part that you didn't add to the quote, 8 of the top 10 cities (by undocumented population in 2016) were not participating.

The cities were this is the largest issue are the ones that didn't want to do business even with the softened Obama approach to it.

The stat you're presenting basically just means that some of the small to midsize cities (that didn't have the significant populations of undocumented folks) that weren't participating before, did.

I don't see where they're specifying what those "16 out of the 25 jurisdictions" were. The fact that the stats I provided show that eight of the top 10 were not participating, means that the ones they got on board were probably smaller, less significant, cities (with regards to illegal immigrant populations)

"Are Los Angeles, New York City or Chicago on board? No... But great news! Toledo, OH and Burlington, VT said they're totally in now!"

Throughout 2015, DHS and ICE conducted a nationwide effort to implement PEP and promote collaboration, reaching out to thousands of local law enforcement agencies and government officials. The agency’s Field Office Directors have briefed the program to over 2,000 law enforcement jurisdictions. Of note, 16 of the top 25 jurisdictions with the largest number of previously declined detainers are now participating in PEP, representing 47 percent of previously declined detainers. Most law enforcement agencies are now cooperating via PEP. On December 22, the City of Philadelphia announced it has agreed to work with us again, and ICE is continuing its outreach to other jurisdictions.

And your AI overview only said that 4 of the top 10 were not participating.

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 9:44 AM

RocksInMyHead said:
And your AI overview only said that 4 of the top 10 were not participating.

The overview highlighted this:

According to the National Immigration Law Center in 2016, Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, San Francisco, and San Diego (4 of the top 10) were not participating.
Jurisdictions like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and Washington, DC were identified as cities that, while participating with certain aspects of the program, refused to honor detainer requests - or initially complied, but then reversed course shortly thereafter.

LA, San Bernadino, San Fran, and San Diego didn't participate at all
Chicago, NYC, Philly, Miami, Baltimore, and DC didn't honor detainer requests

The 8 I have bolded are the ones that are in the list of top 10 cities with the highest undocumented populations.

The bolded 8 are in the list of 25, but weren't in that list of cities 16 cities that were initially refusing, but then later complied.

Per your state, of the top 25 cities that were refusing, 16 eventually got on board, leaving 9 holdouts who didn't want to.

Of the 9 holdouts, 8 of them are on the top 10 list for biggest undocumented populations.

Meaning, the "softened PEP" approach had, at best, a minor impact.

In terms of undocumented populations (referencing the spreadsheet I linked above)
The top 10 collectively have more than 11-40 combined.

If this was any other policy initiative (take your pick)...

Let's say an initiative to reduce the amount of oil drilling... The executive branch revamped the laws, and made all kinds of concessions to the oil companies that they claimed were the thing that was preventing them from getting on board, but then ultimately 8 of the top 10 jurisdictions for drilling (which accounted for over 80% of the issue) still refused to go along with the new plan, but you got 16 random jurisdictions from further down on the list to go along with it, nobody in their right mind would think that was a "big win" that had any sort of noteworthy impact on the issue.

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 11:01 AM

Pommer said:
45 made wunderkind Jared Kushner the point-man for a bevy of policy initiatives; Little ~~hands~~ boots had his horse become a senator.

To be fair, Jared wasn't an entire horse.

rjs330 · Wednesday at 1:36 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
was addressing your comments about the focus on "the worst of the worst."

Just curious as to why you are so focused on the "worst of the worst" issue. Did you honestly hear "We will only focus on the worst of the worst."

Was it selective hearing or selective reading? What made you decide that ICE would only pick up the worst of the worst and leave every other illegal alone?

iluvatar5150 · Wednesday at 1:52 PM

rjs330 said:
Just curious as to why you are so focused on the "worst of the worst" issue.

Because that was the part of your statement that interested me.

rjs330 said:
Did you honestly hear "We will only focus on the worst of the worst."

Was it selective hearing or selective reading? What made you decide that ICE would only pick up the worst of the worst and leave every other illegal alone?

I'm not the one reading selectively. Perhaps you ought to go back and re-read the earlier parts of this thread where the vein got started. Here are the relevant posts:

iluvatar5150 said:
rjs330 said:

One of tge issues here is that when these lunatics do this kind of interference they are preventing ICE from not just removing illegals in general they are interfering with the removal of the worst of the worst as well.

I've been saying this for a while now. Leave them alone and let them do their jobs. If you don't like tge way they are doing their job then march around with signs and stuff around DHS. Thats where the orders are coming from. Leave the agents alone.

Write and call your congressman. Get the laws changed. But Leave the agents alone.

Click to expand...

You know what also prevents ICE from removing "the worst of the worst"? Saddling the agents with arrest and deportation quotas.

Dem presidents have typically had them focus on "the worst of the worst", but Republicans complained about them not getting everybody.

You were the one who said that protestors were getting in the way of removing the "worst of the worst." I pointed out that imposing quotas also gets in the way of removing them.

rjs330 · Wednesday at 9:25 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
I'm not the one reading selectively. Perhaps you ought to go back and re-read the earlier parts of this thread where the vein got started. Here are the relevant posts:

Ah, I see... well I was referring to all the complaints by the left on what Trump said about the worst of the worst. Im guessing you've said the same thing. But who knows maybe I'm wrong and you've never said that.

iluvatar5150 said:
Because that was the part of your statement that interested me.

Okay.

iluvatar5150 said:
I pointed out that imposing quotas also gets in the way of removing them.

Why? If the worst of the worst are part of the quotas then its a win win. These obstructionist are actively interfering with the removal of everyone.

iluvatar5150 · Wednesday at 10:17 PM

rjs330 said:
Why? If the worst of the worst are part of the quotas then its a win win. These obstructionist are actively interfering with the removal of everyone.

Why? Because that’s not how resource allocation works.

If you have 100 officers and you tell them to focus on “the worst of the worst,” then that’s what they’re going to do. But if, instead, you give them quotas, then they’re going to grab the easiest targets, i.e. the people who aren’t in hiding because they haven’t committed any other crimes. <100 guys are going to be catching the worst.

IOW, with the current staffing, they would be getting more bad guys without the quotas.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Daily Mail: Kristi Noem's ICE hiring chaos laid bare as fat, illiterate and violent misfits 'not ready to tie their own laces' are recruited

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads