40 ms·

There's barely any point examining the app on its merits. The mere existence of the app shows resistance to the government's attempts at establishing something

There's barely any point examining the app on its merits. The mere existence of the app shows resistance to the government's attempts at establishing something approaching a police state. They are against the app for that reason. They don't really care about what it does or does not do. It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" and they'd still happily claim it endangers officers lives. (the fact that they're also able to attack independent media at the same time just makes it all the more alluring target)

jumpman_miya 1y ago
[dead]
cmurf 1y ago
If the existence of the app is evidence of nascent police state, what does increasing the budget of ICE by 13x suggest?
- amarcheschi 1y ago
  That reinforces the idea of police state
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- analognoise 1y ago
  Civil war, obviously.
jackmottatx 1y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  They are officers and they are racist mercenaries. This is not a new force, they have no new powers. They didn't need to hire new people willing to perform these actions nor train them how to do so. If you haven't considered this before it should hit you like a hammer to the forehead: where are the resignations? Where are the "good cops" we keep hearing about, what are they doing? The other federal, state, and local law enforcement officers that are assisting in these actions, where is their principled refusal to violate their oath to uphold the constitution? What statements are their powerful and normally very vocal unions making about all this?
  - hatradiowigwam 1y ago
    Their "powerful and normally very vocal unions" are saying /nothing/, because the union's overall goal (by their messaging and their members messaging) is to increase and sustain additional hourly pay and increase the wages for said pay. There is no effective system of checks and balances, or this entire discussion would be moot. Civilian solutions(like ICEBlock and friends) are a whimper of a response compared to the lethal and aggressive actions of these LEOs. Typically entrenched groups(like LEOs) can not be talked or reasoned with into changing their position. Those changes in position come from leverage (ie, your supervisor is replaced or leveraged with the threat of replacement), or direct aggression. As an example, certain villains took issue with these systems and mounted their own lethal response. We are /still/ talking about these individuals because of how riotously effective their actions were at illuminating and mitigating the perceived problems. Whether your talking about Ted K, or Timmy M....they are examples of people who took action to correct a perceived problem. Right or wrong, every reader of this post knows who they are, what they did, and why they did it. Until something of equal magnitude opposes the authoritarian problem of the day(ie ICE), the status quo will continue. edit: typo
  - account42 1y ago
    There are no resignations because they signed up to enforce the law and that's what they are doing now. That you have slurped up propaganda painting that as racists doesn't make it so.
- newAccount2025 1y ago
  I don’t disagree with the characterization of ICE officers as racist thugs, but retaliatory violence is (1) still immoral and (2) self-defeating. You aren’t realistically going to overpower them, so any violent resistance just helps them DARVO harder and excuse escalating their brutality. That’s why they’re always so eager to find or create violent one-offs within non-violent mass protests.
  - esseph 1y ago
    There's more than 340 million people in the US and only a handful are ICE. All it would take is one bad day for anybody in ICE to be afraid to show up to work.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Deportation is a kind of draft, in that deportees are treated similarly to draft dodgers. ICE aren’t MPs, but in this analogy, they largely are folks who have already been drafted themselves, and who have reported for duty. A bad day at work is just more contact with the “enemy” and is desired by some to separate the weekend warriors from the true believers. The fog of war is obscuring the reality of the outbreak of conflict which has been brewing under the surface for many years. The revolution will not be televised because it won’t look like a revolution. It’ll look like C-SPAN. Whatever ICE is doing isn’t a revolution, it’s administrative. People voted for this, and they got it. If people want change, make it happen the way that other changes happen that stick. The lesson of Arab Spring is that even with the military on your side, revolution breaks the status quo, and once broken, norms change because the power structure has changed. Most folks don’t want revolution, they just want a vacation from reality. No one wants to put in the work to make revolutions happen because it’s a lot of paperwork, rehearsals, and standing around. It feels like work because it is. All that effort makes it look natural and inevitable, but that’s the magic of make believe. A bad day at work as you suggest would be a magic act, but who’s gonna put in the work to pull that rabbit out of that hat? And who benefits from such an obvious misdirection? I was at Occupy San Francisco, so I am not just asking questions, but asking you to re-examine what you believe is possible, and why you think a mock pitched battle with tin soldiers has tactical value, so I don’t know what your motive is, but I doubt you would be honest about your motives given the circumstances.
- snapplebobapple 1y ago
  Please follow your convictions so you can be removed from the internet and placed in jail for a decade or two once you are processed through the legal system and found guilty of assaulting a police officer. The internet will be better off without your calls to violence.
  - KingMob 1y ago
    Slowly running out of alternatives, unfortunately. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
    - mystraline 1y ago
      Absolutely. Violence does solve things, but also can make for an immediate 'Very Bad Time'. Police use violence. Military uses violence. Difference is state-monopoly or not. To say violence doesn't work would be to say the police and military don't work - and they do. Anybody calling on violent means should absolutely call upon peaceful means first, secondly, and more. Violence should only be after all peaceful means have been tried. Its better to win by peaceful means, than by exertion of violence. And, violence is no guarantee of winning. And even if you do win, can still be pyrric, in which everyone loses. Tl; dr. Be wary of people casually calling for violence. They're either a state actor, dumb, or both.
    - Whoppertime 1y ago
      That's why Donald Trump's electoral victory stopped a violent revolution
- newdee 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Inciting violence can be protected by the First Ammendment if it isn't inciting imminent illegal action. His post is probably protected. If he were pointing at a guy and saying "We should lynch that ICE agent right now!", that wouldn't be protected speech. FWIW, I don't even remotely agree with what he's saying.
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      To add to this, the speech needs to be imminent, specific and actionable. For example, "People should [bad thing] ICE agents" would be protected speech as it isn't imminent, specific or actionable.
    - account42 1y ago
      This is true but HN does not claim to be a free speech site and instead is focused on interesting discussion. There are many things that are legally protected speech that will get you reprimanded or outright banned here.
      - lupusreal 1y ago
        "Shouldn't be allowed" is ambiguous.
tiahura 1y ago
[flagged]
- velcrovan 1y ago
  My wife was just naturalized as a US Citizen a year ago. You can bet she doesn't want to be anywhere near that mess. Her legal status provides her basically no protection from any ICE rookie with a chip on his shoulder.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - esseph 1y ago
    For those of you not paying attention, just posting a response like this can make you and your family a target. This is not the US I knew.
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        [flagged]
        anonfordays 1y ago
        [flagged]
        margalabargala 1y ago
        Don't confuse my declining to enable your laziness with evidence you are correct.
        1y ago
wslh 1y ago
Genuine question: is sharing the location or distribution of information about police presence illegal? I assume this would be treated differently if it involved military positions, but I'm curious about how the law applies in this case. Waze is another example of an app where users can share information about police presence or roadblocks, while useful to some, could also be seen as having negative implications depending on the context.
- idontwantthis 1y ago
  Absolutely not illegal.
- throw4565e3 1y ago
  Since Waze still has their speed trap reporting feature, I’m guessing it’s still legal.
  - mrbombastic 1y ago
    This is now built into google maps
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  Only if you knew by virtue of something like access to secret information (the things you'd have a security clearance to access). If you see the police are gathered around your local 7-Eleven, you're absolutely free to post it. If you know in advance that the police are going to be performing a raid on a meth house and you got that information by virtue of a security clearance (I assume they do have something of this sort like federal employees have, though I'm not sure the precise mechanisms) then you'd be violating the policies around that access. This could be illegal (just like a fed leaking secret or top secret information). If you know in advance because the police have loose lips, but you are not personally under any kind of confidentiality policy, you're free to post it. So the loose lipped cops at the bars I used to frequent could have caused real problems for themselves.
- mingus88 1y ago
  Worth pointing out that the question of legality is besides the point if you are purposefully antagonizing the police state. It’s not about legality. It’s about compliance. If you become a target, they will arrest you and drop charges later. They will make you miss work and lose your job. They will set up surveillance on you to catch you doing anything else they want to continue harassment. You don’t have to look hard to see reporting of officers using official databases to settle personal scores. 404 media just did a big expose on ALPR Flock DB abuses
mbrumlow 1y ago
[flagged]
- chii 1y ago
  > And laws generally should be enforced. what about the law where people get due process, right to an appeal, and adequate legal representation?
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    We would need to 100x the amount of lawyers to deal with the huge pulse that was always going to occur when this aspect of law was going to be enforced.
    - zitsarethecure 1y ago
      ICE just got a massive boost in funding, so the money is obviously there to pay for it.
    - jawilson2 1y ago
      Cool, so no more due process because it's inconvenient. Hey, you look kinda brown...I think you're an illegal. Or, you posted a funny picture of a political figure on Facebook. Off to El Salvador with you! No, you don't get a day in court, I don't care if you and your parents and your grandparents were all born in the US, you are being sent to a torture camp in a country you've never been to because I THINK you are illegal. See how that works? Due process is a RIGHT FOR EVERY FUCKING PERSON BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT, YOU FUCKING FASCIST. You CANNOT bypass THE fundamental part of the justice process because you're making shit up and want to deploy tan people with autism awareness tattoos, or people who think maybe shooting hungry kids in Gaza is bad.
  - mbrumlow 1y ago
    Oh. The cry of due process. Do you even know what the process is? Or even have a clue how many people deported had a process but it resulted in an outcome they and maybe you did not like? I don’t have time to investigate everybody, but of the sampling I did all had orders active to be deported. The part most of you are missing is there was a process. And failure to comply is what results in people showing up at your house and putting you on a plane. This is no different than if I murder somebody and and escape after the trail before going to jail. 10 years later I am at a coffee shop. Maybe I have a good job a wife a new born and I have been a functional member of society. You better bet that I’ll be arrested and the Jane to go to jail once somebody finds out.
zzzeek 1y ago
> It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" oh great, stealing my idea?
db48x 1y ago
[flagged]
- andrepd 1y ago
  Masked agents. You have masked unidentified agents snatching people from the street, some of them targeted specifically for their wrongthink. Note this is even orthogonal to the actual issue of immigration policy.
- Upas 1y ago
  I think the key difference is the usage of face masks and plainclothes - as far as I can tell, from various different news articles - ICE agents weren't concealing their identities en masse using face masks under Biden and Obama. Based on historical examples of secret police, plainclothes and face masks on Federal Agents by default could definitely make people think that we are "approaching a police state".
  - db48x 1y ago
    I guess it could be purely a misperception that will vanish mysteriously in four years.
    - popularrecluse 1y ago
      So real reporting of happenings from news outlets that don't comport with your desired reality : misperception. Got it.
      - db48x 1y ago
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It’s an objective fact that ICE was removing almost 3× as many people per month this time last year, but that nobody cared at the time. If it’s all about perceptions rather than the objective reality then that makes some sense. All the president has to do is to make a few speeches about how tough on illegal immigration his administration is going to be and people’s perceptions will shift enough that they suddenly care. Now that someone cares enough to start making threats against federal officers, the officers start wearing masks and bullet–proof vests. This apparently causes perceptions to shift even more and people start thinking we live in a police state. But the reality is that they’re doing ⅓rd of the work. They’re literally arresting fewer people. If anything, that makes it _less_ of a police state than before. And the law that ICE is upholding was passed last amended in by Congress in 1996, so it’s not like Trump has suddenly given them a new job to do. So yea, I would say that it’s a misperception. The perception doesn't appear to agree with the objective facts.
Slamidan 1y ago
[dead]
zaptheimpaler 1y ago
They literally did detain travelers who have funny meme images of the VP on their phones.
- thedrbrian 1y ago
  they detained him for his drug use https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444 https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
  - aigen001 1y ago
    "He told the Norwegian newspaper Nordlys that he was questioned at the airport about illegal drug use. He admitted to having used cannabis on two occasions — in Germany and in New Mexico. - It’s legal in both places, so in my mind it was irrelevant, he said." - Nordlys https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/25/norwegian-tourist-jd-vance-meme/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/25/norwegian-tourist-jd-... https://www.nordlys.no/denied-entry-to-the-us-admitted-to-legal-drug-use/s/5-34-2181019 https://www.nordlys.no/denied-entry-to-the-us-admitted-to-le...
    - rsingel 1y ago
      Sadly, if that were actually true that would be even f*** worse. Oh we're not going to let tourists into our country because we asked them whether or not they'd ever smoked pot and they said yes. We have no idea whether that's actually true or not, but if it is, that's the dumbest thing I've ever f*** heard, especially given the marijuana's legal in most states in the United States that anyone outside the US would actually want to visit
    - ashleyn 1y ago
      It's not legal federally. Not that I agree with giving him shit about it, but the federal government basically considers it the same thing as fentanyl. Don't admit it on any federal application.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      > “Verbally they said it was because of extremist propaganda and narcotic paraphernalia," with "extremist propaganda" referring to the alleged meme With the “narcotic paraphernalia” referring to “a photo of the traveler with a homemade wooden pipe” according to Mikkelson. The official document for his rejection stated this reason: > it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation With all these conflicting accounts in mind, perhaps it is plausible that he was denied entry because of his admitted legal cannabis use on two prior occasions. Or perhaps Homeland Security indeed retaliated against a someone for possessing a JD Vance meme, then decided to lie about it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Whoppertime 1y ago
We saw the government establishing something approaching a police state under COVID

jumpman_miya 1y ago

[dead]

cmurf 1y ago

If the existence of the app is evidence of nascent police state, what does increasing the budget of ICE by 13x suggest?

amarcheschi 1y ago
That reinforces the idea of police state
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
analognoise 1y ago
Civil war, obviously.

jackmottatx 1y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 1y ago
They are officers and they are racist mercenaries. This is not a new force, they have no new powers. They didn't need to hire new people willing to perform these actions nor train them how to do so. If you haven't considered this before it should hit you like a hammer to the forehead: where are the resignations? Where are the "good cops" we keep hearing about, what are they doing? The other federal, state, and local law enforcement officers that are assisting in these actions, where is their principled refusal to violate their oath to uphold the constitution? What statements are their powerful and normally very vocal unions making about all this?
- hatradiowigwam 1y ago
  Their "powerful and normally very vocal unions" are saying /nothing/, because the union's overall goal (by their messaging and their members messaging) is to increase and sustain additional hourly pay and increase the wages for said pay. There is no effective system of checks and balances, or this entire discussion would be moot. Civilian solutions(like ICEBlock and friends) are a whimper of a response compared to the lethal and aggressive actions of these LEOs. Typically entrenched groups(like LEOs) can not be talked or reasoned with into changing their position. Those changes in position come from leverage (ie, your supervisor is replaced or leveraged with the threat of replacement), or direct aggression. As an example, certain villains took issue with these systems and mounted their own lethal response. We are /still/ talking about these individuals because of how riotously effective their actions were at illuminating and mitigating the perceived problems. Whether your talking about Ted K, or Timmy M....they are examples of people who took action to correct a perceived problem. Right or wrong, every reader of this post knows who they are, what they did, and why they did it. Until something of equal magnitude opposes the authoritarian problem of the day(ie ICE), the status quo will continue. edit: typo
- account42 1y ago
  There are no resignations because they signed up to enforce the law and that's what they are doing now. That you have slurped up propaganda painting that as racists doesn't make it so.
newAccount2025 1y ago
I don’t disagree with the characterization of ICE officers as racist thugs, but retaliatory violence is (1) still immoral and (2) self-defeating. You aren’t realistically going to overpower them, so any violent resistance just helps them DARVO harder and excuse escalating their brutality. That’s why they’re always so eager to find or create violent one-offs within non-violent mass protests.
- esseph 1y ago
  There's more than 340 million people in the US and only a handful are ICE. All it would take is one bad day for anybody in ICE to be afraid to show up to work.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Deportation is a kind of draft, in that deportees are treated similarly to draft dodgers. ICE aren’t MPs, but in this analogy, they largely are folks who have already been drafted themselves, and who have reported for duty. A bad day at work is just more contact with the “enemy” and is desired by some to separate the weekend warriors from the true believers. The fog of war is obscuring the reality of the outbreak of conflict which has been brewing under the surface for many years. The revolution will not be televised because it won’t look like a revolution. It’ll look like C-SPAN. Whatever ICE is doing isn’t a revolution, it’s administrative. People voted for this, and they got it. If people want change, make it happen the way that other changes happen that stick. The lesson of Arab Spring is that even with the military on your side, revolution breaks the status quo, and once broken, norms change because the power structure has changed. Most folks don’t want revolution, they just want a vacation from reality. No one wants to put in the work to make revolutions happen because it’s a lot of paperwork, rehearsals, and standing around. It feels like work because it is. All that effort makes it look natural and inevitable, but that’s the magic of make believe. A bad day at work as you suggest would be a magic act, but who’s gonna put in the work to pull that rabbit out of that hat? And who benefits from such an obvious misdirection? I was at Occupy San Francisco, so I am not just asking questions, but asking you to re-examine what you believe is possible, and why you think a mock pitched battle with tin soldiers has tactical value, so I don’t know what your motive is, but I doubt you would be honest about your motives given the circumstances.
snapplebobapple 1y ago
Please follow your convictions so you can be removed from the internet and placed in jail for a decade or two once you are processed through the legal system and found guilty of assaulting a police officer. The internet will be better off without your calls to violence.
- KingMob 1y ago
  Slowly running out of alternatives, unfortunately. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
  - mystraline 1y ago
    Absolutely. Violence does solve things, but also can make for an immediate 'Very Bad Time'. Police use violence. Military uses violence. Difference is state-monopoly or not. To say violence doesn't work would be to say the police and military don't work - and they do. Anybody calling on violent means should absolutely call upon peaceful means first, secondly, and more. Violence should only be after all peaceful means have been tried. Its better to win by peaceful means, than by exertion of violence. And, violence is no guarantee of winning. And even if you do win, can still be pyrric, in which everyone loses. Tl; dr. Be wary of people casually calling for violence. They're either a state actor, dumb, or both.
  - Whoppertime 1y ago
    That's why Donald Trump's electoral victory stopped a violent revolution
newdee 1y ago
[flagged]
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Inciting violence can be protected by the First Ammendment if it isn't inciting imminent illegal action. His post is probably protected. If he were pointing at a guy and saying "We should lynch that ICE agent right now!", that wouldn't be protected speech. FWIW, I don't even remotely agree with what he's saying.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    To add to this, the speech needs to be imminent, specific and actionable. For example, "People should [bad thing] ICE agents" would be protected speech as it isn't imminent, specific or actionable.
  - account42 1y ago
    This is true but HN does not claim to be a free speech site and instead is focused on interesting discussion. There are many things that are legally protected speech that will get you reprimanded or outright banned here.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      "Shouldn't be allowed" is ambiguous.

tiahura 1y ago

[flagged]

velcrovan 1y ago
My wife was just naturalized as a US Citizen a year ago. You can bet she doesn't want to be anywhere near that mess. Her legal status provides her basically no protection from any ICE rookie with a chip on his shoulder.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- esseph 1y ago
  For those of you not paying attention, just posting a response like this can make you and your family a target. This is not the US I knew.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        [flagged]
        margalabargala 1y ago
        Don't confuse my declining to enable your laziness with evidence you are correct.
        1y ago

wslh 1y ago

Genuine question: is sharing the location or distribution of information about police presence illegal? I assume this would be treated differently if it involved military positions, but I'm curious about how the law applies in this case. Waze is another example of an app where users can share information about police presence or roadblocks, while useful to some, could also be seen as having negative implications depending on the context.

idontwantthis 1y ago
Absolutely not illegal.
throw4565e3 1y ago
Since Waze still has their speed trap reporting feature, I’m guessing it’s still legal.
- mrbombastic 1y ago
  This is now built into google maps
Jtsummers 1y ago
Only if you knew by virtue of something like access to secret information (the things you'd have a security clearance to access). If you see the police are gathered around your local 7-Eleven, you're absolutely free to post it. If you know in advance that the police are going to be performing a raid on a meth house and you got that information by virtue of a security clearance (I assume they do have something of this sort like federal employees have, though I'm not sure the precise mechanisms) then you'd be violating the policies around that access. This could be illegal (just like a fed leaking secret or top secret information). If you know in advance because the police have loose lips, but you are not personally under any kind of confidentiality policy, you're free to post it. So the loose lipped cops at the bars I used to frequent could have caused real problems for themselves.
mingus88 1y ago
Worth pointing out that the question of legality is besides the point if you are purposefully antagonizing the police state. It’s not about legality. It’s about compliance. If you become a target, they will arrest you and drop charges later. They will make you miss work and lose your job. They will set up surveillance on you to catch you doing anything else they want to continue harassment. You don’t have to look hard to see reporting of officers using official databases to settle personal scores. 404 media just did a big expose on ALPR Flock DB abuses

mbrumlow 1y ago

[flagged]

chii 1y ago
> And laws generally should be enforced. what about the law where people get due process, right to an appeal, and adequate legal representation?
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  We would need to 100x the amount of lawyers to deal with the huge pulse that was always going to occur when this aspect of law was going to be enforced.
  - zitsarethecure 1y ago
    ICE just got a massive boost in funding, so the money is obviously there to pay for it.
  - jawilson2 1y ago
    Cool, so no more due process because it's inconvenient. Hey, you look kinda brown...I think you're an illegal. Or, you posted a funny picture of a political figure on Facebook. Off to El Salvador with you! No, you don't get a day in court, I don't care if you and your parents and your grandparents were all born in the US, you are being sent to a torture camp in a country you've never been to because I THINK you are illegal. See how that works? Due process is a RIGHT FOR EVERY FUCKING PERSON BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT, YOU FUCKING FASCIST. You CANNOT bypass THE fundamental part of the justice process because you're making shit up and want to deploy tan people with autism awareness tattoos, or people who think maybe shooting hungry kids in Gaza is bad.
- mbrumlow 1y ago
  Oh. The cry of due process. Do you even know what the process is? Or even have a clue how many people deported had a process but it resulted in an outcome they and maybe you did not like? I don’t have time to investigate everybody, but of the sampling I did all had orders active to be deported. The part most of you are missing is there was a process. And failure to comply is what results in people showing up at your house and putting you on a plane. This is no different than if I murder somebody and and escape after the trail before going to jail. 10 years later I am at a coffee shop. Maybe I have a good job a wife a new born and I have been a functional member of society. You better bet that I’ll be arrested and the Jane to go to jail once somebody finds out.

zzzeek 1y ago

> It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" oh great, stealing my idea?

db48x 1y ago

[flagged]

andrepd 1y ago
Masked agents. You have masked unidentified agents snatching people from the street, some of them targeted specifically for their wrongthink. Note this is even orthogonal to the actual issue of immigration policy.
Upas 1y ago
I think the key difference is the usage of face masks and plainclothes - as far as I can tell, from various different news articles - ICE agents weren't concealing their identities en masse using face masks under Biden and Obama. Based on historical examples of secret police, plainclothes and face masks on Federal Agents by default could definitely make people think that we are "approaching a police state".
- db48x 1y ago
  I guess it could be purely a misperception that will vanish mysteriously in four years.
  - popularrecluse 1y ago
    So real reporting of happenings from news outlets that don't comport with your desired reality : misperception. Got it.
    - db48x 1y ago
      I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It’s an objective fact that ICE was removing almost 3× as many people per month this time last year, but that nobody cared at the time. If it’s all about perceptions rather than the objective reality then that makes some sense. All the president has to do is to make a few speeches about how tough on illegal immigration his administration is going to be and people’s perceptions will shift enough that they suddenly care. Now that someone cares enough to start making threats against federal officers, the officers start wearing masks and bullet–proof vests. This apparently causes perceptions to shift even more and people start thinking we live in a police state. But the reality is that they’re doing ⅓rd of the work. They’re literally arresting fewer people. If anything, that makes it _less_ of a police state than before. And the law that ICE is upholding was passed last amended in by Congress in 1996, so it’s not like Trump has suddenly given them a new job to do. So yea, I would say that it’s a misperception. The perception doesn't appear to agree with the objective facts.

Slamidan 1y ago

[dead]

zaptheimpaler 1y ago

They literally did detain travelers who have funny meme images of the VP on their phones.

thedrbrian 1y ago
they detained him for his drug use https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444 https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
- aigen001 1y ago
  "He told the Norwegian newspaper Nordlys that he was questioned at the airport about illegal drug use. He admitted to having used cannabis on two occasions — in Germany and in New Mexico. - It’s legal in both places, so in my mind it was irrelevant, he said." - Nordlys https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/25/norwegian-tourist-jd-vance-meme/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/25/norwegian-tourist-jd-... https://www.nordlys.no/denied-entry-to-the-us-admitted-to-legal-drug-use/s/5-34-2181019 https://www.nordlys.no/denied-entry-to-the-us-admitted-to-le...
  - rsingel 1y ago
    Sadly, if that were actually true that would be even f*** worse. Oh we're not going to let tourists into our country because we asked them whether or not they'd ever smoked pot and they said yes. We have no idea whether that's actually true or not, but if it is, that's the dumbest thing I've ever f*** heard, especially given the marijuana's legal in most states in the United States that anyone outside the US would actually want to visit
  - ashleyn 1y ago
    It's not legal federally. Not that I agree with giving him shit about it, but the federal government basically considers it the same thing as fentanyl. Don't admit it on any federal application.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    > “Verbally they said it was because of extremist propaganda and narcotic paraphernalia," with "extremist propaganda" referring to the alleged meme With the “narcotic paraphernalia” referring to “a photo of the traveler with a homemade wooden pipe” according to Mikkelson. The official document for his rejection stated this reason: > it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation With all these conflicting accounts in mind, perhaps it is plausible that he was denied entry because of his admitted legal cannabis use on two prior occasions. Or perhaps Homeland Security indeed retaliated against a someone for possessing a JD Vance meme, then decided to lie about it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Whoppertime 1y ago

We saw the government establishing something approaching a police state under COVID