What if we focused available resources less on arming police with military equipment and more on better training? For example, the $80B+ that Congress gave ICE (an agency that previously had budgets closer to $10B) could be used to train officers on better community engagement, de-escalation strategies, suspect identification (to avoid relying on things like race, ethnicity, or language), and trigger discipline. It may come at the cost of having fewer MRAPs, body armor, or shock gloves[1] but could result in fewer civilian deaths.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-electric-shock-gloves-85ff746...

It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.

What should we expect when it's coming from the top?

Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.

This is very effective for populist parties because in a way it keeps them from being held accountable by their own voters. When I hear interviews with Trump voters being faced with evidence of how Trump hasn't kept one campaign promise or another, it's exactly the sentiment above: politicians never keep their promises anyways and Trump is no different but we like him so we'll stick with him.

The state can also file criminal charges against the officials, although given that the Flint water crisis didn't result in any criminal convictions despite the evidence, I'm not holding my breath. Not to mention that the state could choose _not_ to file charges. In which case, what avenue for justice is left? Financial compensation is only part of it.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr...

1. The definition of American is not as black and white as people would like to think, so who is included and not included in "we Americans" is pretty nebulous. As a recent example, the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment.

2. Who should suffer the consequences of taking advantage of the H1B program? The workers hired under it? The business owners who hired them? The policy makers? If companies were truly 'scamming' the government as the parent comment said, it sounds like the owners of those companies should be punished, perhaps to a degree commensurate with the other anecdotes in this thread of lives being upended and people separated. As the parent comment said: "Sorry...but not sorry"

3. "Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" is a refrain almost as old as this country is but is also not as clear cut as some users here seem to think. Not to mention that it's a very convenient political tool often used to redirect the anger of the poor or marginalized towards immigrants instead of the business owners and those with power who flaunted the law but will not be held to account. I guess "companies who hire illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" just doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way.

We can also take a more critical look at the definition of what being American is. The 20th century, especially pre-1920, was rife with illegal immigration. Why should the descendants of those who skipped the line, who didn't come in "the right way", be able to now call themselves American and reap the unearned benefits of citizenship? They've taken and continue to take jobs from Americans who need them.

Because of women and no-fault divorce? Didn't expect to see that conclusion in the comments. Maybe if we make it illegal it might slightly lower rates of homelessness, but let's see what it does to domestic violence, suicide, and spousal homicide statistics.

Indeed. Even as some of the more mainstream methods to address our current problems become less effective, we should be open to other ways change can come about. Among your list, many of those achievements had their roots in various approaches that didn't involve legislators.

Why only students who got in based on ethnicity? What about students who only got in because their parents are wealthy or alumni? Or students who get in because of athletics but wouldn't otherwise meet academic admissions criteria? I don't know why there's all this focus (and pushback) on race based admissions when there are multiple other meritless avenues for students to get into college. That people focus on eliminating one and not the others is very telling.