6 ms·

The scary part is how this is being done, not that immigration laws are being “followed” (they aren’t). Masked men roaming the streets arresting even US citize

by ok_dad 1y ago

The scary part is how this is being done, not that immigration laws are being “followed” (they aren’t). Masked men roaming the streets arresting even US citizens without a warrant. Going into court rooms and houses of worship to do it. Using violence on unarmed peaceful protesters, regardless of the protest legality. Combine it with the Republican inability to follow the law and the current rhetoric about “antifa” and how democrats are terrorists. That’s why this isn’t good and people are scared. It could turn into civil war at this point, with very little spark. Thankfully you’re from Canada and your stake in the matter is fairly nil.

zahlman 1y ago
Can you show that they have arrested US citizens without reasonable suspicion? Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? From what I can tell, they are legally allowed to wear masks for this. ICE's webpage also is adamant that they legally do not always require a warrant (https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked-questions https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked...), and Snopes agrees (https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-people-warrants/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-people-war...). Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument? Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen. There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism". Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
- pchristensen 1y ago
  This took longer to cut and paste than it did to find on Google. Arresting and detaining citizens based only on race/language: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-kavanaugh-stops-supreme-court-lawsuit.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-... Rhetoric from Donald Trump: - https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-democrats-the-party-of-hate-evil-and-satan-in-late-night-truth-social-rant/ar-AA1NMGYq?ocid=BingNewsSerp https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-de... - https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-networks-democrats-9dfc1257ee12cbd376fd53c3ad084327 https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-ne... Rhetoric from Stephen Miller: https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant-take-it-examples-of-stephen-miller-calling-democrats-fascists-n/ https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant...
  - zahlman 1y ago
    The primary WBEZ source editorialized, and Slate's analysis took it further, such that your one-sentence summary ends up factually incorrect. The direct quote offered by WBEZ: > “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location. > “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent. I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment. Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future." If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent): > To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact. Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this. The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.
- gen220 1y ago
  Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is against the spirit of this nation (or, perversely, you could say it’s the intrinsic spirit of this nation coming out…). There are plenty of things legal which are wrong. That anyone is defending these actions by claiming to do them “legally” is a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence. If it were legal for ICE to hold *humans* classified by the state as “illegal migrants” in concentration camps, would you continue to defend that policy as merely enforcing the law?
  - bmn__ 1y ago
    Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it. If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
    - gen220 1y ago
      I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation. Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations? The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc. At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
      - wredcoll 1y ago
- wredcoll 1y ago
  > Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? How, when we, the people/country, are not allowed to arrest ice agents and put them on trial? How do you propose we apply legal rules if some people are above them? > Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument? No, because the people involved DON'T GET COURT CASES. I genuinely do not know if you merely haven't taken in any new information over the last 12 months or are deliberately trying to promote a false agenda. > Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration? If you are genuinely trying to discuss this matter, you can't use deflection tactics like this.

by ok_dad 1y ago

zahlman 1y ago

Can you show that they have arrested US citizens without reasonable suspicion? Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? From what I can tell, they are legally allowed to wear masks for this. ICE's webpage also is adamant that they legally do not always require a warrant (https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked-questions https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked...), and Snopes agrees (https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-people-warrants/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-people-war...). Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument? Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen. There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism". Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?

pchristensen 1y ago
This took longer to cut and paste than it did to find on Google. Arresting and detaining citizens based only on race/language: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-kavanaugh-stops-supreme-court-lawsuit.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-... Rhetoric from Donald Trump: - https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-democrats-the-party-of-hate-evil-and-satan-in-late-night-truth-social-rant/ar-AA1NMGYq?ocid=BingNewsSerp https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-de... - https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-networks-democrats-9dfc1257ee12cbd376fd53c3ad084327 https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-ne... Rhetoric from Stephen Miller: https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant-take-it-examples-of-stephen-miller-calling-democrats-fascists-n/ https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant...
- zahlman 1y ago
  The primary WBEZ source editorialized, and Slate's analysis took it further, such that your one-sentence summary ends up factually incorrect. The direct quote offered by WBEZ: > “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location. > “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent. I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment. Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future." If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent): > To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact. Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this. The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.
gen220 1y ago
Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is against the spirit of this nation (or, perversely, you could say it’s the intrinsic spirit of this nation coming out…). There are plenty of things legal which are wrong. That anyone is defending these actions by claiming to do them “legally” is a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence. If it were legal for ICE to hold *humans* classified by the state as “illegal migrants” in concentration camps, would you continue to defend that policy as merely enforcing the law?
- bmn__ 1y ago
  Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it. If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
  - gen220 1y ago
    I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation. Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations? The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc. At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
wredcoll 1y ago
> Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? How, when we, the people/country, are not allowed to arrest ice agents and put them on trial? How do you propose we apply legal rules if some people are above them? > Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument? No, because the people involved DON'T GET COURT CASES. I genuinely do not know if you merely haven't taken in any new information over the last 12 months or are deliberately trying to promote a false agenda. > Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration? If you are genuinely trying to discuss this matter, you can't use deflection tactics like this.