This analysis is predicated on a few things- that the estimates in the article are accurate, that 1 in 10,000 assumes that the process of deporting the 10,000 was the same that detained those Americans and not in addition to those deportations, and finally that those deportations were necessary and would not have happened without racial profiling.
I don’t think I agree with any of those points. Firstly the article is likely a gross underestimate from a few months ago. Since then a lot has happened - Americans have even been killed by ICE. On the second, we deported plenty of people in previous administrations without the racial profiling that lead to several of these Americans being detained. Finally, I don’t believe this level of deportation is making us safer or benefiting us economically
> On the second, we deported plenty of people in previous administrations without the racial profiling that lead to several of these Americans being detained.
This is false, which should be expected, since not detaining an American would necessarily mean freeing all who couldn't be immediately identified.
Here's a realistic scenario that I would like your answer for:
A car is pulled over for having plates that belong to someone with an expired visa, with a deportation judgement. The car contains 5 people, none have valid forms of id. In your opinion, what's the next step? Do you temporarily detain them to figure out who is who, possibly detaining a citizen? What is the correct next action to make sure less than 1 in 10000 citizens are temporarily detained?
I don’t think I agree with any of those points. Firstly the article is likely a gross underestimate from a few months ago. Since then a lot has happened - Americans have even been killed by ICE. On the second, we deported plenty of people in previous administrations without the racial profiling that lead to several of these Americans being detained. Finally, I don’t believe this level of deportation is making us safer or benefiting us economically