6 ms·

It's different because ICE is a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US. They don't get warrants, engage in racial profiling, disappeared 2/3rds o

by hedora 1y ago

It's different because ICE is a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US. They don't get warrants, engage in racial profiling, disappeared 2/3rds of the people sent to some of their facilities, arrest citizens, assault peaceful protesters, etc. They're doing this over the objection of state and local authorities, and despite the fact that their actions have been repeatedly ruled illegal by the courts.

psunavy03 1y ago
A Federal government agency is "a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US?" What? "I think they're being employed in a shitty and potentially illegal manner outside their remit" is a perfectly arguable take that doesn't require tinfoil-hattery.
- kokanee 1y ago
  You might not like the tone, but I don't see what makes the words false. "Paramilitary" describes a non-military group behaving similarly to a military group, and we're talking about armed masked men sweeping homes, taking prisoners, and engaging in violent conflicts. "Operating illegally" means that federal, state, or local laws have been broken, and that seems to be the case, e.g. Gonzalez v. ICE.
  - theultdev 1y ago
    Federal law supersedes state law. ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws “From January to June, the average number of detainees per day in ICE custody rose 43 percent, to more than 57,000. But since July, when the [OBBA] funding was approved, the detainee population has increased only about 5 percent, to roughly 60,000, the latest statistics show. The stream of social-media clips showing masked federal agents kicking down doors, raiding Home Depot parking lots, and pulling people from their car have kept up the appearance of an ever-expanding campaign. ICE’s own data show that the agency’s buildup stalled over the summer” [1]. Meanwhile, with first-year deportations around 400,000 [2], they stand to match what Obama did in 2012 [3], despite spending $40 to 70bn, or 10 to 15x, more [4][5]. Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, ICE is involved in domestic policing, partisan intimidation and the illegal detention of American citizens. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-immigration-detention-centers/684465/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-imm... [2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil... [3] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG-116-GO00-20200109-SD007.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG... [4] https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 $5.8bn, FY2012, $8.2bn CPI adjusted to ‘25 [5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-bill/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b... $45 to 75 billion under OBBBA
      - theultdev 1y ago
        Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over. Easy to inflate deportations when you catch the same fish and the river is flowing. Much slower when you dam off the river and have to dig the remaining catfish out of the mud.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over “U.S. Border Patrol agents recorded nearly 238,000 apprehensions of migrants crossing the southern border illegally in fiscal year 2025” [1]. For 2012 to 2015, the chart shows about 360k, 420k, 480k and 330k, respectively. So ICE is spending $330 to 580 thousand dollars per additional Southwest border encounter in 2025 versus 2012. ($250 to 440 thousand if we average Obama’s second-term numbers.) These numbers 10x even San Francisco’s circa 2016 homeless-industrial profligacy [2]. Unless ICE is a ball of wormy corruption, they’re clearly not focused on immigration enforcement. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-crossings-along-u-s-mexico-border-plummet-to-lowest-annual-level-since-1970/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-cr... [2] https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
        theultdev 1y ago
        Interior enforcement is the focus currently. Crossings are lower overall due to securing of the border.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Interior enforcement is the focus currently If it is, it's being pursued corruptly and incompetently. From the top of the thread, ICE is spending boatloads more money to deport just about as many people as Obama did with a tenth of the budget [1]. Cross-border encounters are within 100,000, so the difference is not explained by recividism. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506994
    - nielsbot 1y ago
      Do you agree enforcing immigration laws in this way is good and/or important? If so, can I ask why? What is our end goal?
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > can I ask why? Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration. Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racists. If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t. All while blowing the military budget of Saudi Arabia [1][2] to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much. [1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-defense-spending-to-78b-in-2025/ https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-d... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-bill/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...
        apparent 1y ago
        [flagged]
        yibg 1y ago
        What's the cause and what's the effect? Less protests because ICE under Obama wasn't taking such a heavy handed and legally gray approach perhaps?
        apparent 1y ago
        Great question! It was pretty clear that people would be protesting Trump from the day he was re-elected. His methods undoubtedly haven't helped, but I'm pretty sure there would have been protesters regardless.
        coredog64 1y ago
    - nulbyte 1y ago
      I don't know why this was flagged. It may be wrong, but I think it worth discussing to correct. Not all of Federal law supersedes state law. The Tenth Amendment clarifies: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. If it's not given to the federal government to regulate, the federal government can't regulate it.
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        It hasn't been flagged.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Federal law supersedes state law It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law. California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB668 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
      - theultdev 1y ago
        [flagged]
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws Preëmption is about conflicts of laws [1]. You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preëmpt California law. > Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats I live in a red state. We started to see ICE enforcement and then our Senators told them to fuck off. To the extent we have a safe zone from immigration enforcement, it's in Republican economic strongholds [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids-targeting-farms-restaurants-hotels-2025-06-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids...
        stackskipton 1y ago
        >You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preempt California law. Legally, it's up for debate on how much power localities can regulate Federal Law Enforcement operations. Federal Government takes the view that it's restrictions on operations by states is almost zero. There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling. States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      They're enforcing the law in profoundly illegal ways.
- asacrowflies 1y ago
  How is what is supposed to be "law enforcement" repelling from helicopters to ziptie children and running over protesters with armored personnel carriers and receiving satellite and cellphone intelligence and coordinating with that national guard ....not "paramilitary"
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    They bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls. Sure they have the occasional off-the-shelf imsi catcher. "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls ICE ran a 5AM motorcade through my mountain town, compete with helicopter escort. We’re in a red state, though, and border a red farm state, so I understand they were actually told to knock it off. > "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer The only part of a definition [1] that ICE might fail is in whether they’re professionally designated to act as a secret police. If by wannabe you’re saying ICE intends to be and act like a paramilitary, you’ve effectively conceded the point. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        Lol what? "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct." Genuine curiosity, what did the motorcade look like? Gov plates or personal vehicles? Was the helicopter ICE or local police keeping an eye on things?
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct." (I never said what you’re falsely quoting.) An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force. TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game. > Gov plates or personal vehicles? Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.) I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries. The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police. > local police keeping an eye on things? Not state or local.
- fzeroracer 1y ago
  It doesn't require any tinfoil-hattery though because everything they're doing is very public. Like you look at their actions Chicago [1] and I think it's impossible to NOT think they're an illegal paramilitary group. They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. They've violated people's constitutional rights multiple times over. [1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 1y ago
    >They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. What's the proportion of US citizens arrested compared to actual illegal immigrants?
    - fzeroracer 1y ago
      I'm sorry, why does the proportion matter? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Are you saying you, personally, would be OK with being rounded up and arrested as long as they got X illegal immigrants along the way?
      - coredog64 1y ago
        Presumption of innocence applies to your trial, not to being apprehended. E.g. the state has to prove that you are guilty. If I'm a US citizen and I get swept up in an immigration raid, my lawyer calls my wife who brings my US passport and I'm released. A pain in the ass, but not a violation of my civil rights. Now if I get beat up by ICE, or they file a false claim for resisting, then sure, we've got grounds for a case that my rights were violated. But constitutional rights are not a blanket "I can never be arrested if I think I'm innocent"
cosmicgadget 1y ago
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition. What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
    - fzeroracer 1y ago
      The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
      - cortesoft 1y ago
        You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation. By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
apparent 1y ago
Are they arresting citizens whose behavior does not warrant arrest? I have read about several arrests, but the citizens were all interfering with lawful detentions that ICE was carrying out.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Yep, the children were interfering, sleeping in their beds.
  - apparent 1y ago
    Can you share links to this? Sounds awful. I have not heard of any children sleeping in beds being arrested by ICE, which would obviously be inappropriate/illegal.
    - mmustapic 1y ago
      https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
      - apparent 1y ago
        Sorry, I don't see anything about citizens being arrested here. Is there any news coverage supporting the above claim that citizens are being arrested without cause (that is, not just for interfering with ICE?

by hedora 1y ago

psunavy03 1y ago

A Federal government agency is "a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US?" What? "I think they're being employed in a shitty and potentially illegal manner outside their remit" is a perfectly arguable take that doesn't require tinfoil-hattery.

kokanee 1y ago
You might not like the tone, but I don't see what makes the words false. "Paramilitary" describes a non-military group behaving similarly to a military group, and we're talking about armed masked men sweeping homes, taking prisoners, and engaging in violent conflicts. "Operating illegally" means that federal, state, or local laws have been broken, and that seems to be the case, e.g. Gonzalez v. ICE.
- theultdev 1y ago
  Federal law supersedes state law. ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws “From January to June, the average number of detainees per day in ICE custody rose 43 percent, to more than 57,000. But since July, when the [OBBA] funding was approved, the detainee population has increased only about 5 percent, to roughly 60,000, the latest statistics show. The stream of social-media clips showing masked federal agents kicking down doors, raiding Home Depot parking lots, and pulling people from their car have kept up the appearance of an ever-expanding campaign. ICE’s own data show that the agency’s buildup stalled over the summer” [1]. Meanwhile, with first-year deportations around 400,000 [2], they stand to match what Obama did in 2012 [3], despite spending $40 to 70bn, or 10 to 15x, more [4][5]. Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, ICE is involved in domestic policing, partisan intimidation and the illegal detention of American citizens. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-immigration-detention-centers/684465/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-imm... [2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil... [3] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG-116-GO00-20200109-SD007.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG... [4] https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 $5.8bn, FY2012, $8.2bn CPI adjusted to ‘25 [5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-bill/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b... $45 to 75 billion under OBBBA
    - theultdev 1y ago
      Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over. Easy to inflate deportations when you catch the same fish and the river is flowing. Much slower when you dam off the river and have to dig the remaining catfish out of the mud.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over “U.S. Border Patrol agents recorded nearly 238,000 apprehensions of migrants crossing the southern border illegally in fiscal year 2025” [1]. For 2012 to 2015, the chart shows about 360k, 420k, 480k and 330k, respectively. So ICE is spending $330 to 580 thousand dollars per additional Southwest border encounter in 2025 versus 2012. ($250 to 440 thousand if we average Obama’s second-term numbers.) These numbers 10x even San Francisco’s circa 2016 homeless-industrial profligacy [2]. Unless ICE is a ball of wormy corruption, they’re clearly not focused on immigration enforcement. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-crossings-along-u-s-mexico-border-plummet-to-lowest-annual-level-since-1970/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-cr... [2] https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
        theultdev 1y ago
        Interior enforcement is the focus currently. Crossings are lower overall due to securing of the border.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Interior enforcement is the focus currently If it is, it's being pursued corruptly and incompetently. From the top of the thread, ICE is spending boatloads more money to deport just about as many people as Obama did with a tenth of the budget [1]. Cross-border encounters are within 100,000, so the difference is not explained by recividism. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506994
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    Do you agree enforcing immigration laws in this way is good and/or important? If so, can I ask why? What is our end goal?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > can I ask why? Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration. Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racists. If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t. All while blowing the military budget of Saudi Arabia [1][2] to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much. [1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-defense-spending-to-78b-in-2025/ https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-d... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-bill/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...
      - apparent 1y ago
        [flagged]
        yibg 1y ago
        What's the cause and what's the effect? Less protests because ICE under Obama wasn't taking such a heavy handed and legally gray approach perhaps?
        apparent 1y ago
        Great question! It was pretty clear that people would be protesting Trump from the day he was re-elected. His methods undoubtedly haven't helped, but I'm pretty sure there would have been protesters regardless.
        coredog64 1y ago
  - nulbyte 1y ago
    I don't know why this was flagged. It may be wrong, but I think it worth discussing to correct. Not all of Federal law supersedes state law. The Tenth Amendment clarifies: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. If it's not given to the federal government to regulate, the federal government can't regulate it.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      It hasn't been flagged.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Federal law supersedes state law It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law. California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB668 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
    - theultdev 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws Preëmption is about conflicts of laws [1]. You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preëmpt California law. > Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats I live in a red state. We started to see ICE enforcement and then our Senators told them to fuck off. To the extent we have a safe zone from immigration enforcement, it's in Republican economic strongholds [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids-targeting-farms-restaurants-hotels-2025-06-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids...
        stackskipton 1y ago
        >You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preempt California law. Legally, it's up for debate on how much power localities can regulate Federal Law Enforcement operations. Federal Government takes the view that it's restrictions on operations by states is almost zero. There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling. States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    They're enforcing the law in profoundly illegal ways.
asacrowflies 1y ago
How is what is supposed to be "law enforcement" repelling from helicopters to ziptie children and running over protesters with armored personnel carriers and receiving satellite and cellphone intelligence and coordinating with that national guard ....not "paramilitary"
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  They bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls. Sure they have the occasional off-the-shelf imsi catcher. "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls ICE ran a 5AM motorcade through my mountain town, compete with helicopter escort. We’re in a red state, though, and border a red farm state, so I understand they were actually told to knock it off. > "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer The only part of a definition [1] that ICE might fail is in whether they’re professionally designated to act as a secret police. If by wannabe you’re saying ICE intends to be and act like a paramilitary, you’ve effectively conceded the point. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Lol what? "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct." Genuine curiosity, what did the motorcade look like? Gov plates or personal vehicles? Was the helicopter ICE or local police keeping an eye on things?
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct." (I never said what you’re falsely quoting.) An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force. TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game. > Gov plates or personal vehicles? Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.) I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries. The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police. > local police keeping an eye on things? Not state or local.
fzeroracer 1y ago
It doesn't require any tinfoil-hattery though because everything they're doing is very public. Like you look at their actions Chicago [1] and I think it's impossible to NOT think they're an illegal paramilitary group. They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. They've violated people's constitutional rights multiple times over. [1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 1y ago
  >They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. What's the proportion of US citizens arrested compared to actual illegal immigrants?
  - fzeroracer 1y ago
    I'm sorry, why does the proportion matter? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Are you saying you, personally, would be OK with being rounded up and arrested as long as they got X illegal immigrants along the way?
    - coredog64 1y ago
      Presumption of innocence applies to your trial, not to being apprehended. E.g. the state has to prove that you are guilty. If I'm a US citizen and I get swept up in an immigration raid, my lawyer calls my wife who brings my US passport and I'm released. A pain in the ass, but not a violation of my civil rights. Now if I get beat up by ICE, or they file a false claim for resisting, then sure, we've got grounds for a case that my rights were violated. But constitutional rights are not a blanket "I can never be arrested if I think I'm innocent"

cosmicgadget 1y ago

It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition. What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
  - fzeroracer 1y ago
    The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
    - cortesoft 1y ago
      You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation. By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.

apparent 1y ago

Are they arresting citizens whose behavior does not warrant arrest? I have read about several arrests, but the citizens were all interfering with lawful detentions that ICE was carrying out.

actionfromafar 1y ago
Yep, the children were interfering, sleeping in their beds.
- apparent 1y ago
  Can you share links to this? Sounds awful. I have not heard of any children sleeping in beds being arrested by ICE, which would obviously be inappropriate/illegal.
  - mmustapic 1y ago
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
    - apparent 1y ago
      Sorry, I don't see anything about citizens being arrested here. Is there any news coverage supporting the above claim that citizens are being arrested without cause (that is, not just for interfering with ICE?