This comment is a pretty robust example of the problem I was referring to.

What nuance is missing? The above comment is a list of facts.

Lists of facts don’t inherently constitute a nuanced take.

Yes, but they do constitute an accurate one.

The point here is that the people currently in charge hold 100% of the power, and they're misusing it. You don't have any power, nor do I, nor do the poor American citizens who may or may not be executed.

They, the people in power, do not require your good will or help. They're already maxed out. They are already 100% legitimate and in control. While it might be nuanced to argue ICE as an institution is one which should exist, it's also just doing more harm.

Is there anything inaccurate in the above comment?

Then stop hiding behind "nuance" and be more explicit about how you support what's going on. Everyone who disagrees with the ongoing blatant fascist police state activity do not lack nuance, they lack your ability to suppress empathy.

It's a slippery slope.

ICE at one time was legitimate - their previous purpose had legitimacy... past tense.

ICE will not exist at some point in the hopefully sooner future than later.

No amount of nuance will change fundamental failure to success.

For someone that complains a lot about people lacking 'nuance', your post history is guilty of the exact same crime you complain about. So it's doubly clear that you're not actually arguing with good intention.

I'm neutral here, but I think the person you're replying to already covered your points when they wrote

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.

That isn't written in good faith, though. It's a "both sides" argument that's clearly written from a particular side.

> ICE has a clear and ethical mandate

It doesn't, given the current administration. It's somewhat questionable in general, given that being in the country illegally isn't a felony (or criminal) in itself. We have local law enforcement that can handle cases of illegal actions, regardless of immigration status, and actual crimes can and do lead to deportation.

The vast majority of people being targeted, via mandate, are not criminals. The mandate of the current administration also includes protestors, regardless of citizenship status.

So, no, that person didn't cover the points, and your neutrality here is also written in a way that backs up that person, so that's also somewhat questionable.