4 ms·

We did. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires every noncitizen who is 18 years old and over to carry evidence of their immigration “registration do

We did. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires every noncitizen who is 18 years old and over to carry evidence of their immigration “registration documents” at all times.

acdha 1y ago
That only applies to non-citizens. You were talking about citizens, who are not required to carry ID under U.S. law. They are also not allowed to just stop random people asking about citizenship without cause, although they are appealing court losses in cases involving American citizens of Mexican or Native American descent trying to get SCOTUS to overturn that.
- guywithahat 1y ago
  As much as I hate to re-enter this convo, aerostable_slug is right. You've consistently been wrong throughout this whole conversation. The people detained were suspected of being here illegally and weren't citizens. Being detained is not the same as being deported, and is simply holding until more information is known. The INA was created before the cold war and only applies to non-citizens, which is a milder policy than a lot of developed countries. Plus, while I'm not inclined to believe everything the government says, immediately rejecting government data because it violates your desired world view is childish, especially when there's no reason to doubt it.
  - acdha 1y ago
    This thread is a bit muddled since it’s mixing talk of citizen (not required to carry ID) and non-citizen (required, but cannot be stopped without reasonable suspicion outside of border areas and has the right to remain silent: i.e. ICE can’t go to a stadium and demand over the PA that everyone volunteer status) rights, and I think some of my comments about the former were confused with the latter. In any case, don’t trust me when you can get an actual lawyer’s summary: https://internationalservices.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs6431/files/2025-04/KYR.pdf https://internationalservices.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs64... > immediately rejecting government data because it violates your desired world view is childish, especially when there's no reason to doubt it. You appear to have confused me with someone else. That said, given both the highly politicized climate and the many recent examples of claims being dropped or falling apart in court, I think it’s prudent to only trust things defended in a court of law. It’s certainly plausible that there was a tip about immigration fraud which meant that they had clear cause for stopping people but it also wouldn’t be surprising if people under intense pressure to hit quotas made some bad calls. I’m sure that many of the numbers they report are valid - large chunks of the economy depend on foreign labor - but expect the final numbers will be substantially lower.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    > "The people detained were suspected of being here illegally and weren't citizens." The people detained included US Citizens who weren't carrying documentation of their citizenship. > "...The judicial warrant for the search at the Hyundai plant named just four people. Relying on that warrant, ICE detained nearly 500 people. DHS admitted that included U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and people lawfully here on visas.'" https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lydsbmc5c22p https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lydsb... It's an absurd law for basic reasons: if US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship, and non-citizens are, then the law either is totally pointless and unenforceable; or (in this case) trigger-happy police unlawfully detain US citizens on suspicion. It's a Catch-22: a US citizen is not obligated to carry *the papers proving they're not obligated to carry papers*.

We did. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires every noncitizen who is 18 years old and over to carry evidence of their immigration “registration documents” at all times.

acdha 1y ago

That only applies to non-citizens. You were talking about citizens, who are not required to carry ID under U.S. law. They are also not allowed to just stop random people asking about citizenship without cause, although they are appealing court losses in cases involving American citizens of Mexican or Native American descent trying to get SCOTUS to overturn that.

guywithahat 1y ago
As much as I hate to re-enter this convo, aerostable_slug is right. You've consistently been wrong throughout this whole conversation. The people detained were suspected of being here illegally and weren't citizens. Being detained is not the same as being deported, and is simply holding until more information is known. The INA was created before the cold war and only applies to non-citizens, which is a milder policy than a lot of developed countries. Plus, while I'm not inclined to believe everything the government says, immediately rejecting government data because it violates your desired world view is childish, especially when there's no reason to doubt it.
- acdha 1y ago
  This thread is a bit muddled since it’s mixing talk of citizen (not required to carry ID) and non-citizen (required, but cannot be stopped without reasonable suspicion outside of border areas and has the right to remain silent: i.e. ICE can’t go to a stadium and demand over the PA that everyone volunteer status) rights, and I think some of my comments about the former were confused with the latter. In any case, don’t trust me when you can get an actual lawyer’s summary: https://internationalservices.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs6431/files/2025-04/KYR.pdf https://internationalservices.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs64... > immediately rejecting government data because it violates your desired world view is childish, especially when there's no reason to doubt it. You appear to have confused me with someone else. That said, given both the highly politicized climate and the many recent examples of claims being dropped or falling apart in court, I think it’s prudent to only trust things defended in a court of law. It’s certainly plausible that there was a tip about immigration fraud which meant that they had clear cause for stopping people but it also wouldn’t be surprising if people under intense pressure to hit quotas made some bad calls. I’m sure that many of the numbers they report are valid - large chunks of the economy depend on foreign labor - but expect the final numbers will be substantially lower.
- perihelions 1y ago
  > "The people detained were suspected of being here illegally and weren't citizens." The people detained included US Citizens who weren't carrying documentation of their citizenship. > "...The judicial warrant for the search at the Hyundai plant named just four people. Relying on that warrant, ICE detained nearly 500 people. DHS admitted that included U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and people lawfully here on visas.'" https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lydsbmc5c22p https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lydsb... It's an absurd law for basic reasons: if US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship, and non-citizens are, then the law either is totally pointless and unenforceable; or (in this case) trigger-happy police unlawfully detain US citizens on suspicion. It's a Catch-22: a US citizen is not obligated to carry *the papers proving they're not obligated to carry papers*.