311–320 of 350 posts
The whole story of telling ICE agents to just go out and find people on their own seems like a setup to empower the executive branch to have their own group of thugs. Without guidance they do what want outside the judicial system and sensible oversight / rules. This seems to be a pattern in most non democratic countries...
Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.
That's like saying vigilantism is defensible.
I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
The whole story of telling ICE agents to just go out and find people on their own seems like a setup to empower the executive branch to have their own group of thugs. Without guidance they do what want outside the judicial system and sensible oversight / rules. This seems to be a pattern in most non democratic countries...
Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.
the main reason why immigration law has not been enforced is because a large number of US businesses (farms, factories, etc.) depend on those illegal immigrants as their workforce
if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals -- which would also stem the tide of people coming into the US -- but that hasn't been done because immigrants -- regardless of their official status -- are a net positive for the US economy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that they're doing this under the "expedited removal" provision of the 1996 IIRIRA law. If you've been in the US less than 2 years, arrived without inspection or at a port of entry with invalid documents, or don't have lawful resident status, you're subject to expedited removal. If not, you are entitled to an administrative immigration hearing. For some context, under Obama in 2013, there were rou…
> But it's not unconstitutional or unlawful as far I can tell. The problem is that you can’t tell: if they follow the law, you can be fairly confident that it is constitutional but when they’re rapidly deporting people without hearings and with officers actively resisting oversight, we have only their word that the people being deported do in fact meet those criteria. Since they’ve been documented as detaining citize…
So I've seen this claim a few times and I have personally heard of a few well publicized cases where this occurred. Given the nature of the work, I'd imagine it's almost impossible for this not to happen at some point. From Wikipedia:
- Between FY 2015 and Q2 FY 2020, ICE arrested 674 individuals believed to be U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70 (GAO)
- From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained around 1,480 U.S. citizens
- 2008-2012 saw 834 U.S. citizens and 28,489 permanent residents mistakenly placed on immigration detainers .
So it seems this may have been happening at an even higher rate under other administrations. This is not a defense of the practice... I can't describe how angry I would be if this happened to someone in my family. But I am trying to be objective and react based on numbers, not emotions, and convince others to do the same.
> What’s happening now is exactly what happens every time some incompetent boss tells everyone to hit a number no matter what, except that the stakes are far higher.
My biggest concern is that words being misused are burning the credibility that may eventually be necessary. It would not surprise me if Trump started ordering them to do unconstitional and unlawful things. But if you've been throwing those words around carelessly and inaccurately, you'll have no credibility to use them when the need truly arises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My elected representative gets (credible) death threats if they resist executive monarchy.
Gas station clerks get credible death threats for not selling people alcohol before noon on Sunday and manage to show a hell of a lot more spine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chance to fix that is in 2026 at the ballot, and preparation every day until then. The whole "there won't be elections" hysteria is exactly because the current MAGA movement is scared shitless of being rejected again. Furthermore, if Trump-y candidates do poorly in 2026, he'll be a lame duck president with little political clout for his final 2 years. Politicians are many things, but charitable to unpopular peopl…
Trump promised his followers won't have to vote any more. Why would he promise that if there will be fair elections in 2026 and 2028?
You can pull-quote Trump saying literally anything, from being pro-gun to anti-gun, pro-queer to radically anti-queer, literal child molester to saint.
His words literally don't matter, because he says them all.
Pay attention only to his actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The speed with which other Americans went from 'we need guns to protect ourselves from the feds trampling over our rights' to 'federal agents bagging someone with zero identification or justification is OK actually' really does go to show how much of that was bluster. It's obvious to me that if federal agents weren't concerned with backlash for obviously illegal actions they would properly present themselves.
The true reason for this is that there are two (basically) groups of people in the US. The group that is pro gun might be opposed to this, but are not going to directly use weapons to defend themselves unless targeted. And they are not being targeted in this situation, so we don't see that coming into play.
> “Is your freedom more important than my safety?!”
> I don’t know you, my lunch is more important to me than you are.
It is insane that federal agents are allowed to roam around in masks, without ID and just arrest people.
They arent. They need probable cause to arrest just like any other law enforcement. If they just arrest you because you're annoying or fake charges. You can sue them for deprivation of rights.
Common refrain in these reports, "Was refused access to counsel, and loaded onto a plane/taken to a facility".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a lot we don’t know about the composition of the group here. The Trump administration has been routinely embedding other agencies like the FBI in ICE operations: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ice-oper... Impeding federal law enforcement officers is a crime - to which other federal officers (not sure about ICE) have the ability to make an arrest.
Does asking for confirmation that you're a federal agent with the power to detain/arrest constitute impeding? Because I hope you see how that's a bad path to go down. Yes, you're required to comply with law enforcement. But if you're required to comply with unidentified law enforcement, we're gonna have problems.
Just as in many jurisdictions you can be arrested for Resisting Arrest as the sole charge. "We weren't going to or had no grounds to arrest you, but since you resisted[1], we're now arresting you for that."
[1] for varying definitions of "resist"