4 ms·

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

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.
      - fzeroracer 1y ago
        By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society. The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution. Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
        cortesoft 1y ago
        Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law. Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
        mothballed 1y ago
        If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King. SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
        cortesoft 1y ago
    - k33n 1y ago
      The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law. If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces. You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
      - walkabout 1y ago
        > The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
    - FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
      Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-US-Immigration-Policy https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > What actions are you referring to The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law). [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-...
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand. Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing. > Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
  - harimau777 1y ago
    Just because SCOTUS says something doesn't make it just. Especially this court.
  - joshuahedlund 1y ago
    How about denying the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens to be secure in their homes in the recent Chicago apartment raid? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-retes-ice-detained-us-citizen/684152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Let's hope the people not subject to a warrant sue ICE's pants off. As far as I can tell, most of the dragnets are either in public places or with the permission of the property owner. I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.
      - habinero 1y ago
        It's essentially impossible to sue ICE, they have qualified immunity. Police have been doing similar things for years.
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        The officers do, not the agency or police department. People sue and win against police departments all the time.
- k33n 1y ago
  [flagged]
softwaredoug 1y ago
I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal... A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  So call what they're doing 'wrong' not 'illegal'. The remedies for those two things are very different.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Well also a lot of what they're doing to enforce laws without warrants, arresting citizens without cause, lack of due process, etc is illegal. But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
    - coredog64 1y ago
      Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal? If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
      - softwaredoug 1y ago
        I should have said "without cause" (now edited). Brown folks are detained randomly because they don't have their papers on them and "look Mexican".
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - 1y ago
code_runner 1y ago
If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime. Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Agreed.
- k33n 1y ago
  Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal. Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait. This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process. Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
  - nxobject 1y ago
    > Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal. > This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0] I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-racial-profiling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
  - 1y ago
jbritton 1y ago
ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.
N70Phone 1y ago
> as a general rule To rudely open a dictionary: "As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases. Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES. The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Did it seem from how I employed the term "as a general rule" that I didn't understand its meaning?
  - N70Phone 1y ago
    It seemed quite the opposite. That you knew exactly what you were saying, but using weasel words to imply ICE was acting above board without stating any falsehoods that might be challenged. The rhetorical trick of my reply being that it forces you to either address to the meat of the subject, or leave the statement uncontested. But congratulations, conceding the argument rather than ousting yourself as a fascist was the better choice.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Please read the rules.

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.
    - fzeroracer 1y ago
      By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society. The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution. Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
      - cortesoft 1y ago
        Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law. Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
        mothballed 1y ago
        If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King. SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
        cortesoft 1y ago
  - k33n 1y ago
    The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law. If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces. You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
    - walkabout 1y ago
      > The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
    Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-US-Immigration-Policy https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What actions are you referring to The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law). [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-...
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand. Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing. > Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
- harimau777 1y ago
  Just because SCOTUS says something doesn't make it just. Especially this court.
- joshuahedlund 1y ago
  How about denying the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens to be secure in their homes in the recent Chicago apartment raid? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-retes-ice-detained-us-citizen/684152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Let's hope the people not subject to a warrant sue ICE's pants off. As far as I can tell, most of the dragnets are either in public places or with the permission of the property owner. I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.
    - habinero 1y ago
      It's essentially impossible to sue ICE, they have qualified immunity. Police have been doing similar things for years.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        The officers do, not the agency or police department. People sue and win against police departments all the time.
k33n 1y ago
[flagged]

softwaredoug 1y ago

I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal... A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
So call what they're doing 'wrong' not 'illegal'. The remedies for those two things are very different.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Well also a lot of what they're doing to enforce laws without warrants, arresting citizens without cause, lack of due process, etc is illegal. But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
  - coredog64 1y ago
    Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal? If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
    - softwaredoug 1y ago
      I should have said "without cause" (now edited). Brown folks are detained randomly because they don't have their papers on them and "look Mexican".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1y ago

code_runner 1y ago

If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime. Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Agreed.
k33n 1y ago
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal. Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait. This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process. Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
- nxobject 1y ago
  > Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal. > This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0] I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-racial-profiling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
- 1y ago

jbritton 1y ago

ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.

N70Phone 1y ago

> as a general rule To rudely open a dictionary: "As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases. Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES. The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Did it seem from how I employed the term "as a general rule" that I didn't understand its meaning?
- N70Phone 1y ago
  It seemed quite the opposite. That you knew exactly what you were saying, but using weasel words to imply ICE was acting above board without stating any falsehoods that might be challenged. The rhetorical trick of my reply being that it forces you to either address to the meat of the subject, or leave the statement uncontested. But congratulations, conceding the argument rather than ousting yourself as a fascist was the better choice.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Please read the rules.