That it's getting easier to delist flights from public trackers is a new development with far-reaching consequences that "good hackers would find interesting." It's on-topic as ever. The censorship efforts by some is getting out of control and needs to stop.
Does it seem like hacktivism is at an all time low? In the 2010s there were a lot of groups calling themselves anonymous which attacked petty tyrants at the state and local level who were trying to cover up crimes. Now we're diving headfirst into a fascist takeover of American government and it feels like the only hackers you hear of anymore are criminals or state actors from eastern europe
So it's interesting - this isn't new if you're in aviation, the redditors on /r/flying, /r/aviation, etc basically summed this up but it's just interesting that the floor to post an article is what is presented here. Just eerie the closer you are to a subject the more you see through the news.
But basically, yeah if you also go on the pilot facebook groups, you'd see alot of gossip about the flights happening and such too.
With the rise of these tracking services a cat-and-mouse-situation was foreseeable all along, especially for security related type of flights.
Probably already happening for intelligence operations. I assume the obfuscation makes sense for deportation-flights, but one could argue that keeping it transparent would be a political win. So what might be the reason? Keeping the involved staff safe?
It's like asking why a government that is supposedly subservient to its citizens has a system of Classification that prevents citizens from finding out what their government is doing
I don't have any skin in the game, nor did I say they deserve to be murdered, the only thing I stated is that oppression is always met with resistance.
If ICE agents are acting immorally, violently, and oppressive they will be met by people who are fearful, angry, the results of that are generally violent. They are making their own bed, I don't think anyone deserves to be murdered but realistically people who are oppressing others end up murdered.
Is it your opinion that ICE should be oppressing others? Including US citizens? If so, why?
Edit: for example, in this case[0], is it ok, in your opinion, that ICE is stochastically killing a kid with cancer? Don't you believe the emotional response to these actions can end up in violence? Wouldn't you be violent if it was your kid and you had no other recourse?
Just think a bit harder, I believe you are definitely able to.
It’s not oppression to detain and deport people who are in a country illegally. These are people who have no right to be in this country in the first place.
I really do feel for the kid in your example, but at the same time, it is not America’s job to take everyone into the country illegally and provide for all of their needs at the expense of those who do actually follow the law and pay taxes. Who is supposed to take care of that child if the parents can’t legally be here? Do we add them to the already overloaded foster care system?
The parents of that child should have come here legally. They are the problem here, not ICE. This is the problem with birthright citizenship. It creates these situations where if they leave the children here they’re “sEPaRAting FamiliES” but if they keep the family together they’re “DePOrting American CitIZEns.” It’s an impossible lose-lose situation.
The kid is a citizen, they were not there illegally, you are just repeating that sentence as if it was true for all cases when it's not, it's not true, there are American citizens being deported with not judicial review.
The parents were deported while doing a routine check-in with immigration, there are many other stories similar to this: people who had been following the rules and were snatched so ICE can make the numbers the administration wants to.
You are simply inhumane if you cannot see past this bullshit, you are defending the deportation of American citizens, including kids with cancer under treatment, for what exactly? Because your taxes are being wasted anyway, you are paying for this while paying for everything else, including tax breaks for the richest of your society.
I believe you just don't have any empathy, no society survives without it, yours is about to find that out the hard way.
And by the way, immigrants in that status also pay taxes while not having access to most of the services provided by taxes since they are not legal residents, good luck taking out a good chunk of your workforce doing basic necessities for society while losing on that tax base, you are about to find out these holes won't ever be patched just by your native population...
Edit: ah, lol, you look exactly how I'd picture someone swallowing and spewing this rhetoric would look like, good luck, mate.
Considering there are 14 million illegal immigrants left in the US, and if 0.5 million new ones enter each year, Trump will have to deport 4 million each year if he wants them gone by the time his term is over. I think the rate is going to climb heavily from 1 million a year.
> Though flights have been a part of US immigration operation for years, the speed and scale of the ICE program today is unprecedented. Since Trump's inauguration, there have been more than 1,000 deportation flights to other countries, up 15% over the January to July period last year, according to Witness at Border.
What this is really saying: Trump administration continues long-standing US government policy (incl. previous Democratic administrations) of deporting flights , improving effectiveness by 15%.
A couple of questions arise for me:
a) is this a good policy?
b) is the execution being done in a legal manner (due process, etc.)?
c) why did the Democratic Party not advertise their immigration enforcement to the electorate, when that was probably the most foundational issue the opposition ran on?
Propably a result of wheighing the options here: curbing the enthusiasm of your opponent's base vs. that of yours. You loose more of your own base than you're going to win from the opponents.
From this perspective, it can be quite logical why the DNC stayed silent about this. After luring your base in with "enforcing rule-of-law is racist"-rethoric, admitting to enforcing the law would be a bit of political suicide.
not a gotcha. How do they get to turn around ppl at port of entry at the airport because ppl are on american soil and they need to go through standard due process before they get deported back.
Because people who are on your soil might have a reason to be there. They might not be immigrants at all, but you won't find that out without due process. Everyone should have the right to show that they are allowed to live there, otherwise you can just deport anyone you want without verifying that you should actually do that, which we have seen multiple times in america recently
Well if it's before immigration, then they aren't technically in america yet, so it's not deportation, it's refusal of entry. And I expect they also have to have a good reason for refusal, either due to who the person is, what they're carrying, or what documentation they have/don't have, which will be investigated as part of due process
If I fly from outside of the country into o'hare, I'm not technically in america until I pass through immigration. When you get off the plane, I don't think you are technically in any country.
If you have incorrect documents, a border agent can deny you entry, but if you have committed a crime, you are entitled to a lawyer etc, which is due process. If you are simply thrown in a van for unproven crimes and sent out of the country, that is not due process
When you land at O’Hare from an international flight, you are physically and legally already in the United States the moment the aircraft touches down on U.S. soil (or waters).
U.S. law applies in the airport terminal, on the jet bridge, and in the customs/immigration area.
The idea that you’re in “no country” until you pass through immigration is more of a metaphorical or procedural concept, not a literal legal one.
Getting caught up in personality soap opera politics is unhelpful. If you are either ‘for’ or ‘against’ Trump, aim higher.
To answer your question, recent comments by Trump suggest it was to mollify agriculture. Ag is going to face some serious labor supply issues and it would probably be wise for the administration to work with them to ease the transition.
I agree there’s been a lot of short-term thinking involved. It was easier to stick with a broken ag system that had become dependent on illegal aliens than to deal with the pain that structural reform would involve. However, in the end, that just leads to a bigger mess and more to clean up.
I'm not surprised this was flagged.
Forget ICE though, that this anonymity is allowed is rather frightening.
I'm predicting headlines in the coming years about drugs being flown into the U.S. under cover of ICE flights.
(Some of us can remember the drug flights in the 1980's that paid for arming the Nicaraguan Contras.)
That it's getting easier to delist flights from public trackers is a new development with far-reaching consequences that "good hackers would find interesting." It's on-topic as ever. The censorship efforts by some is getting out of control and needs to stop.
Does it seem like hacktivism is at an all time low? In the 2010s there were a lot of groups calling themselves anonymous which attacked petty tyrants at the state and local level who were trying to cover up crimes. Now we're diving headfirst into a fascist takeover of American government and it feels like the only hackers you hear of anymore are criminals or state actors from eastern europe
Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they do not exist, with DDoSecrets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Denial_of_Secrets) pretty much taking over the role that WikiLeaks had 15 years ago.
Although I'd say it's kinda true that they're far more interested in attacking Russia and Israel these days than they are attacking the US.
If they're targeting Russia, then they're playing the opposite role that Wikileaks did
> a lot of groups calling themselves anonymous
That is of course one way to put it. Antoher would be to consider these groups part of the "intelligence community".
I dont see why the IC would do some of these things. Like the Steubenville rape case, for example
https://archive.is/Er6oU
So it's interesting - this isn't new if you're in aviation, the redditors on /r/flying, /r/aviation, etc basically summed this up but it's just interesting that the floor to post an article is what is presented here. Just eerie the closer you are to a subject the more you see through the news.
But basically, yeah if you also go on the pilot facebook groups, you'd see alot of gossip about the flights happening and such too.
Seems to be working.
Journalism picking up something interesting/important from obscurity and bringing it to the attention of a larger audience.
Seems like a very good thing.
See through the news how? You mean that the pilot FB groups were aware of this irregularity before the press brought it to a wider audience?
With the rise of these tracking services a cat-and-mouse-situation was foreseeable all along, especially for security related type of flights.
Probably already happening for intelligence operations. I assume the obfuscation makes sense for deportation-flights, but one could argue that keeping it transparent would be a political win. So what might be the reason? Keeping the involved staff safe?
If ICE, subcontractors, and the federal government and are doing nothing wrong, why do they need to hide?
Most Americans are against this crazy immigration stuff, so I think they’re trying to prevent future prosecutions for doing obviously illegal things.
It's like asking why a government that is supposedly subservient to its citizens has a system of Classification that prevents citizens from finding out what their government is doing
[flagged]
It's hard to be safe when you are snatching random people off the street without identifying as law enforcement. Especially in a country this armed.
The USA 2A group is surprisingly quiet with all the tyranny happening.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Oppression always meets resistance, a tale as old as time.
You can resist without murdering people.
I though this is what your precious 2nd amendment is for.
If you’re serious about the history and intent of the Second Amendment, this is a great article on the topic…
https://www.usconstitution.net/founding-fathers-gun-rights/
You can't control nor expect what's gonna be the resistance, sometimes it's Gandhi, others it's the IRA.
Without the fear of violence there wouldn't be any fear of resistance, that's the whole point...
Quite funny to read this very absurd take, gatekeeping resistance against oppression.
Is it your opinion that ICE agents deserve to be murdered and if so, why?
I don't have any skin in the game, nor did I say they deserve to be murdered, the only thing I stated is that oppression is always met with resistance.
If ICE agents are acting immorally, violently, and oppressive they will be met by people who are fearful, angry, the results of that are generally violent. They are making their own bed, I don't think anyone deserves to be murdered but realistically people who are oppressing others end up murdered.
Is it your opinion that ICE should be oppressing others? Including US citizens? If so, why?
Edit: for example, in this case[0], is it ok, in your opinion, that ICE is stochastically killing a kid with cancer? Don't you believe the emotional response to these actions can end up in violence? Wouldn't you be violent if it was your kid and you had no other recourse?
Just think a bit harder, I believe you are definitely able to.
[0] https://www.latintimes.com/4-year-old-us-citizen-fighting-st...
It’s not oppression to detain and deport people who are in a country illegally. These are people who have no right to be in this country in the first place.
I really do feel for the kid in your example, but at the same time, it is not America’s job to take everyone into the country illegally and provide for all of their needs at the expense of those who do actually follow the law and pay taxes. Who is supposed to take care of that child if the parents can’t legally be here? Do we add them to the already overloaded foster care system?
The parents of that child should have come here legally. They are the problem here, not ICE. This is the problem with birthright citizenship. It creates these situations where if they leave the children here they’re “sEPaRAting FamiliES” but if they keep the family together they’re “DePOrting American CitIZEns.” It’s an impossible lose-lose situation.
The kid is a citizen, they were not there illegally, you are just repeating that sentence as if it was true for all cases when it's not, it's not true, there are American citizens being deported with not judicial review.
The parents were deported while doing a routine check-in with immigration, there are many other stories similar to this: people who had been following the rules and were snatched so ICE can make the numbers the administration wants to.
You are simply inhumane if you cannot see past this bullshit, you are defending the deportation of American citizens, including kids with cancer under treatment, for what exactly? Because your taxes are being wasted anyway, you are paying for this while paying for everything else, including tax breaks for the richest of your society.
I believe you just don't have any empathy, no society survives without it, yours is about to find that out the hard way.
And by the way, immigrants in that status also pay taxes while not having access to most of the services provided by taxes since they are not legal residents, good luck taking out a good chunk of your workforce doing basic necessities for society while losing on that tax base, you are about to find out these holes won't ever be patched just by your native population...
Edit: ah, lol, you look exactly how I'd picture someone swallowing and spewing this rhetoric would look like, good luck, mate.
Buy 1 way ticket, get free return ride, subscribe for more travel hacks.
But the hotel really was a let-down.
Considering there are 14 million illegal immigrants left in the US, and if 0.5 million new ones enter each year, Trump will have to deport 4 million each year if he wants them gone by the time his term is over. I think the rate is going to climb heavily from 1 million a year.
> Though flights have been a part of US immigration operation for years, the speed and scale of the ICE program today is unprecedented. Since Trump's inauguration, there have been more than 1,000 deportation flights to other countries, up 15% over the January to July period last year, according to Witness at Border.
What this is really saying: Trump administration continues long-standing US government policy (incl. previous Democratic administrations) of deporting flights , improving effectiveness by 15%.
A couple of questions arise for me:
a) is this a good policy?
b) is the execution being done in a legal manner (due process, etc.)?
c) why did the Democratic Party not advertise their immigration enforcement to the electorate, when that was probably the most foundational issue the opposition ran on?
Re c)
Propably a result of wheighing the options here: curbing the enthusiasm of your opponent's base vs. that of yours. You loose more of your own base than you're going to win from the opponents.
From this perspective, it can be quite logical why the DNC stayed silent about this. After luring your base in with "enforcing rule-of-law is racist"-rethoric, admitting to enforcing the law would be a bit of political suicide.
Has anybody ever said “enforcing the rule of law is racist”?
This is America, we’ve had plenty of explicitly racist laws without a canard like this for “the Dems”.
You make it sound like no one ever demanded to „defund the police“
[flagged]
Do you also want the bit where random people are deported for no reason, and there is no due process for anyone either?
not a gotcha. How do they get to turn around ppl at port of entry at the airport because ppl are on american soil and they need to go through standard due process before they get deported back.
Because people who are on your soil might have a reason to be there. They might not be immigrants at all, but you won't find that out without due process. Everyone should have the right to show that they are allowed to live there, otherwise you can just deport anyone you want without verifying that you should actually do that, which we have seen multiple times in america recently
right. my comment was a question, not a statement. I always found it weird that they can deport ppl at the airport port of entry. should be illegal.
Well if it's before immigration, then they aren't technically in america yet, so it's not deportation, it's refusal of entry. And I expect they also have to have a good reason for refusal, either due to who the person is, what they're carrying, or what documentation they have/don't have, which will be investigated as part of due process
> then they aren't technically in america yet
What do you mean? Ohare airport is in america.
one random person checking your docs and deporting you is not "due process" . Thats not any different from what ICE is doing.
If I fly from outside of the country into o'hare, I'm not technically in america until I pass through immigration. When you get off the plane, I don't think you are technically in any country.
If you have incorrect documents, a border agent can deny you entry, but if you have committed a crime, you are entitled to a lawyer etc, which is due process. If you are simply thrown in a van for unproven crimes and sent out of the country, that is not due process
When you land at O’Hare from an international flight, you are physically and legally already in the United States the moment the aircraft touches down on U.S. soil (or waters).
U.S. law applies in the airport terminal, on the jet bridge, and in the customs/immigration area.
The idea that you’re in “no country” until you pass through immigration is more of a metaphorical or procedural concept, not a literal legal one.
Authorities’ dereliction of the duty to secure the border for decades is hard to fathom. There’s literally 40 years of deportation backlog.
That this program is frustrating goals of “La Resistencia” - the source for the article - is probably a sign that the program is a good one.
During Trump’s first administration, the total number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. continued to rise.
I wonder what he needed all those illegal immigrants for…
Getting caught up in personality soap opera politics is unhelpful. If you are either ‘for’ or ‘against’ Trump, aim higher.
To answer your question, recent comments by Trump suggest it was to mollify agriculture. Ag is going to face some serious labor supply issues and it would probably be wise for the administration to work with them to ease the transition.
So they failed to "protect the border" because they needed labor. Shocking.
I agree there’s been a lot of short-term thinking involved. It was easier to stick with a broken ag system that had become dependent on illegal aliens than to deal with the pain that structural reform would involve. However, in the end, that just leads to a bigger mess and more to clean up.
Politics will always, always, always choose the short term solution.
The planes are also just that.