9 ms·

I still don't understand. Who gave ICE such power, and who is ordering them to do all this? To me, ICE's actions are similar to those of a private army.

MisterTea 6mo ago
[flagged]
crooked-v 6mo ago
Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), and Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), respectively.
- righthand 6mo ago
  I would call passing a bill to fund it, pretty direct support from Republicans in Congress/Senate.
- js2 6mo ago
  It's Stephen Miller, enabled by Trump.
dismalaf 6mo ago
Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws. The author isn't American. Edit - wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...
- rootusrootus 6mo ago
  Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not. Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing. For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely. Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    - Planktonne 6mo ago
      If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - 6mo ago
- rdiddly 6mo ago
  Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.
- ramon156 6mo ago
  Did you completely miss the news in January? ICE killed an innocent american citizen. The person responsible never got arrested or jailed. This isn't about enforcing the law, its the book definition of fascism, and we're letting it happen. > wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws... Legal citizens are being arrested based on no evidence. where in your law book says this is legal?
stackskipton 6mo ago
Congress gave them the power. They are federal law enforcement who actions were mainly restrained by desire of their leadership (US President) to keep their actions curtailed. That desire is gone so they are going all out.
pixl97 6mo ago
You're making a mistaken thinking power is given. Quite often in the US government organizations 'just do', and it's the power of the executive, judicial, or legislative to stop them. Unfortunately Trump is doing whatever he wants at this point and ignoring anyone that says otherwise.
- asdfman123 6mo ago
  Democratic backsliding occurs through the gradual erosion of norms and safeguards. One small step at a time...
laweijfmvo 6mo ago
The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since this all started post 911 to react, and chose not to.
- oceansky 6mo ago
  There elections every two years, it's not too late. But only if people actually want that enough to vote and press politicians.
  - anigbrowl 6mo ago
    There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone. There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like. This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.
    - Eisenstein 6mo ago
      The answer is to vote in the primaries. That's how you unseat a 'safe' seat. I'm not going to say its a good answer, because the primary system and the two party system in general are terrible, but its the best choice you have besides running yourself.
    - HerbManic 6mo ago
      It also doesn't help that in situations like this, both major parties are moving in lock step. You cannot vote against something that both party stand for. Terrance McKenna once said that the worst president was the one in power, regardless of when it is. It is because for the most part, they just keep building on the existing frame work, standing on the shoulders of those before them. Now one could argue that Trump is doing the opposite this term, but depending on were you stand, this might not have been a great out come.
htx80nerd 6mo ago
[flagged]
- mplanchard 6mo ago
  a) The kids in cages garnered significant press, public sympathy, and protest b) I also lived in Austin during that time, and the scale and militarization of current ICE action is on another level to what it was in the early 10's
  - 9x39 6mo ago
    c) despite appearances and the current state of fear, Trump's second-term ICE has deported merely a fraction (0.6m) achieved under Obama's ICE (3m+), so if it's on a different level, it's clearly a lower one. Movement vs action, perhaps. https://www.wlrn.org/immigration/2026-01-23/politifact-fl-immigration-after-one-year-under-trump-where-do-mass-deportation-efforts-stand https://www.wlrn.org/immigration/2026-01-23/politifact-fl-im... https://tracreports.org/tracatwork/detail/A6019.html https://tracreports.org/tracatwork/detail/A6019.html 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...
    - kelnos 6mo ago
      It's a little weird to compare Obama's 8-year numbers to Trump's 1.25-year numbers.
      - 9x39 6mo ago
        I think what's weird is comparing them based on the zeitgeist, photos, video, and sensationalism instead of whatever numbers are at hand. The fear and the danger are rarely the same. Whether you think we should look at per-year numbers or the overall numbers, I'd say that most people count total progress of a thing moreso than the velocity, or the prices of things instead of the spot inflation rate.
    - grosswait 6mo ago
jmyeet 6mo ago
The answer to this is that Google gave ICE this power by complying instead of fighting the subpoena or notifying the subject of the subpoena, both of which they can do according to the ACLU [1]. Willing, optional compliance with the administration is the core problem here. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
dfxm12 6mo ago
Probably Stephen Miller. Correct, he doesn't have the authority, correct, this is outside the scope of the org. Neither the republican controlled congress nor the republican controlled SCOTUS are interested in exercising their checks and balances though.
normal-person 6mo ago
Move for a constitutional amendment allowing free immigration then. Don't just stand there!

MisterTea 6mo ago

[flagged]

crooked-v 6mo ago

Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), and Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), respectively.

righthand 6mo ago
I would call passing a bill to fund it, pretty direct support from Republicans in Congress/Senate.
js2 6mo ago
It's Stephen Miller, enabled by Trump.

dismalaf 6mo ago

Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws. The author isn't American. Edit - wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...

rootusrootus 6mo ago
Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
- mothballed 6mo ago
  The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not. Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing. For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely. Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  - Planktonne 6mo ago
    If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 6mo ago
rdiddly 6mo ago
Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.
ramon156 6mo ago
Did you completely miss the news in January? ICE killed an innocent american citizen. The person responsible never got arrested or jailed. This isn't about enforcing the law, its the book definition of fascism, and we're letting it happen. > wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws... Legal citizens are being arrested based on no evidence. where in your law book says this is legal?

stackskipton 6mo ago

Congress gave them the power. They are federal law enforcement who actions were mainly restrained by desire of their leadership (US President) to keep their actions curtailed. That desire is gone so they are going all out.

pixl97 6mo ago

You're making a mistaken thinking power is given. Quite often in the US government organizations 'just do', and it's the power of the executive, judicial, or legislative to stop them. Unfortunately Trump is doing whatever he wants at this point and ignoring anyone that says otherwise.

asdfman123 6mo ago
Democratic backsliding occurs through the gradual erosion of norms and safeguards. One small step at a time...

laweijfmvo 6mo ago

The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since this all started post 911 to react, and chose not to.

oceansky 6mo ago
There elections every two years, it's not too late. But only if people actually want that enough to vote and press politicians.
- anigbrowl 6mo ago
  There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone. There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like. This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.
  - Eisenstein 6mo ago
    The answer is to vote in the primaries. That's how you unseat a 'safe' seat. I'm not going to say its a good answer, because the primary system and the two party system in general are terrible, but its the best choice you have besides running yourself.
  - HerbManic 6mo ago
    It also doesn't help that in situations like this, both major parties are moving in lock step. You cannot vote against something that both party stand for. Terrance McKenna once said that the worst president was the one in power, regardless of when it is. It is because for the most part, they just keep building on the existing frame work, standing on the shoulders of those before them. Now one could argue that Trump is doing the opposite this term, but depending on were you stand, this might not have been a great out come.

htx80nerd 6mo ago

[flagged]

mplanchard 6mo ago
a) The kids in cages garnered significant press, public sympathy, and protest b) I also lived in Austin during that time, and the scale and militarization of current ICE action is on another level to what it was in the early 10's
- 9x39 6mo ago
  c) despite appearances and the current state of fear, Trump's second-term ICE has deported merely a fraction (0.6m) achieved under Obama's ICE (3m+), so if it's on a different level, it's clearly a lower one. Movement vs action, perhaps. https://www.wlrn.org/immigration/2026-01-23/politifact-fl-immigration-after-one-year-under-trump-where-do-mass-deportation-efforts-stand https://www.wlrn.org/immigration/2026-01-23/politifact-fl-im... https://tracreports.org/tracatwork/detail/A6019.html https://tracreports.org/tracatwork/detail/A6019.html 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...
  - kelnos 6mo ago
    It's a little weird to compare Obama's 8-year numbers to Trump's 1.25-year numbers.
    - 9x39 6mo ago
      I think what's weird is comparing them based on the zeitgeist, photos, video, and sensationalism instead of whatever numbers are at hand. The fear and the danger are rarely the same. Whether you think we should look at per-year numbers or the overall numbers, I'd say that most people count total progress of a thing moreso than the velocity, or the prices of things instead of the spot inflation rate.
  - grosswait 6mo ago

jmyeet 6mo ago

The answer to this is that Google gave ICE this power by complying instead of fighting the subpoena or notifying the subject of the subpoena, both of which they can do according to the ACLU [1]. Willing, optional compliance with the administration is the core problem here. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

dfxm12 6mo ago

Probably Stephen Miller. Correct, he doesn't have the authority, correct, this is outside the scope of the org. Neither the republican controlled congress nor the republican controlled SCOTUS are interested in exercising their checks and balances though.

normal-person 6mo ago

Move for a constitutional amendment allowing free immigration then. Don't just stand there!