> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle.
If and when that happens, we can talk about this.
> What does this mean?
It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen.
> Most of them probably are citizens.
I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy.
> the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here.
> the current immigration enforcement regime
This use of language is poisoning the well.
> they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws.
Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should?
When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle.
If and when that happens, we can talk about this.
> What does this mean?
It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen.
> Most of them probably are citizens.
I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy.
> the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here.
> the current immigration enforcement regime
This use of language is poisoning the well.
> they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws.
Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should?
When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.