News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I would argue that instead of ICE, we should have a vastly expanded IRS to enforce regulations upon businesses. For example, every business is assigned state and federal accountants, who check that the books are legit. These accountants are regularly rotated by the nation, so that companies can't establish "working" relationships with any given accountant, which reduces corruption.
This would increase the amount of money that government receives from the 1%, along with helping prevent wage theft or other criminal activities. Businesses, not migrants, are innately prone to corruption.
Why instead of ICE? These are not mutually exclusive things and they don’t even address the same problems.
The money spent on ICE, can be used to enforce regulations. The wealthy don't like that, and would prefer us to focus on bullying the little people. It wastes our time and attention, so that genuine criminals can get away with casual crimes. In the US, the largest form of theft is wage theft, and I would argue that paying migrants below minimum wage is also theft.
While there will always be a need for some sort of physical authority, we can probably cut 90% of physical agencies, and use that budget for more useful things. For example, mental health outtreach programs that provide free therapy, genuine shelter and food without strings for the homeless, and so forth.
That is why if there are any physical enforcement, agencies need to have very specific missions, tight rules, and to be built from the ground up for the purpose. The majority of police in America were originally slave catchers, but became what we call police over the centuries. That brutal character inherently poisoned our physical enforcement institutions. Outright deleting ICE and other existing agencies, and then building new ones without legacy personnel, would promote peace.
While I would agree ICE and most police agencies need a thorough cleansing to purge them of racists, we can’t just get rid of 90% of them and start from scratch. That’s too big a transition. It needs to be done gradually to ensure se always have a police force and some form of illegal immigration deterrence.
I obviously do think we should be taxing the crap out of corporations. The top 1% isn’t really individual rich people, but the corporations they own. I would also advocate ending “corporate personhood.” That would be a big step in the right direction, as would reversing the Citizens United ruling or better yet, passing a law that makes it moot.
We can start from scratch - kill one department and replace it at a time. We probably could hire from Finland and other countries abroad to start clean-sheet academies to raise our first decade or so of officers. They put a great deal of effort and time into training their police, and we can pay them for services rendered. Finland might appreciate our supply of MRAPs and other surplus military gear, considering who they share borders with.
LOL, you want to hire foreign police to replace entire PDs in America? And how do you think Americans would feel about being policed by foreigners? Hell, what makes you think foreigners would want to police Americans? Please, name me one historical instance of this working, let alone having happened.
It would be one thing to take cues from European police forces to change the culture and tactics of American police forces, which I would totally support, but actually bringing foreign cops here to replace American cops? No way. Not a chance in hell that would work.
Australia does hire foreigners onto their forces.
International Recruitment - Your experience can make a real difference in Queensland.
Besides, history is a wild and wooly thing that isn't set in stone. Before FDR and the Great Depression, most Americans wouldn't have considered the possibility of huge socialist programs such as Social Security. Besides, if a civil war happens, what is "American" will be redefined, simply because the respective sides would have different ideologies. Before the War for Independence, many Americans considered themselves to be British.
Crack open any volume of "The Cartoon History of the Universe", and you will see something very apparent: Nations and their people change all the time. It is just for you and me, history looks slow, so we can't easily recognize changes when they are happening.
If we want to change America for the better, we must be willing to discard "traditional" thought. It is when we refuse to consider possibilities, that "tradition" decays into "stagnation".
What you're citing in Australia isn't comparable to what you're suggesting happen in America. Employing a few foreign cops who happen to be living in your country is completely different than replacing entire police departments with foreign police that you bring over from another country.
And please, don't lecture me about taking the long view of history. I'm opposed to your idea because I don't think it will work for a variety of reasons. The fact that there's no historical precedent for it is just one argument.