The law does not always reflect ethics. It is a snapshot, sometimes old, of the ethics (or lack thereof) of a time and place. Crimes are laudible when the letter of the law misaligns with the ethics of the time, and then eventually laws catch up.
If everyone always followed the law, nothing would ever improve.
I get the concept, but the question then is if it's ethical to release those names when most of DHS has nothing to do with ICE. The age old question of how much collateral damage is acceptable. It seems most of the praise being given casts DHS as being similar Nazis, but doesn’t consider who is actually involved or not.
I appreciate you being willing to have a genuine conversation about this. Unfortunately, I think both sides have become so consumed by outrage that finding common ground feels almost impossible.
I’m conflicted myself. Having grown up in New Mexico, I’ve known and been friends with many people who could face deportation. I wish there were a more accessible path to citizenship for them, and I know many of them wish the same.
At the same time, I find it deeply disturbing how many people celebrate Luigi Mangione, argue that Charlie Kirk deserved to be murdered, or applaud the exposure of private information belonging to their fellow citizens. It’s difficult to reconcile demands for compassion with such a willingness to dehumanize people we disagree with.
I wish we had a greater collective capacity for mercy, or at least a willingness to extend some grace to one another. But increasingly, I fear people have become more invested in fighting than finding peace. I genuinely hope I’m wrong.
From the article: "In a note attached to the files, the Department of Peace wrote, "They have our information, so it's only fair that we have theirs.""
Fighting in the US war of independence was a crime too, but those people are considered patriot heros.
Some seem to sincerely believe that renewed immigration law enforcement is morally evil.
I'm not sure why since it was enforced this way for decades before except for a few years recently. Now, I think that one can argue that ICE is overly aggressive, that it casts too wide a net, that too many mistakes are made, that it should focus on specific violations instead, etc. But these are arguments that can be made for any law enforcement agency, and have been for over 100 years in the USA. Sometimes, IMO, they were even justified.
That said, however, it also seems that many have latched onto ICE enforcement actions as a bell-weather pre-cursor to additional actions that will lead to a dystopian outcome. Or is in the process of doing so as we speak.
Thus, if one believes this to be true, then one can see why actions taken to fight/oppose/slow down the process can be viewed in a morally good light and something to be celebrated.
> Some seem to sincerely believe that renewed immigration law enforcement is morally evil.
No one believes that, this is a strawman. Notice how there were no large protests, no continual protests, and no widespread outrage before ICE's tactics were changed and a bunch of insurrectionists were hired? Yes, you do notice that "except for a few years recently".
Is there anything that may have changed in the past few years that may have caused people to be against ICE?
I was just watching a video the other day of ICE protestors blocking NYC bridge traffic. Tons of people coming out of their vehicles pleading with them to move so they could get to their job, drop their kid off, deliver a DoorDash order, etc.
I'm all for fighting against your enemies, even if I don't see it exactly the same way. But when I see stuff like that, it just seems totally disconnected from doing anything meaningful towards their enemies (besides making more of them, I guess).
Those sort of tactics seem to come from the belief that "awareness" is an important precursor to socio-political change. Which, I guess is technically true. But I agree that this particular sort of awareness building is detrimental to their stated cause.