People really need to get things together and investigate these crimes committed against the people.
In no world did we ever allow the government to track our movements or what we think. People are free and are not bound to laws that the gov will simply trample over when they feel like it.
Use encryption, don't tell plans, and keep fighting. We have got this.
The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons.
Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization, a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.
If you want to bring in something from the overall European region, Switzerland would be a more appropriate model. Instead of trying to implement constitutionally impossible rules and mandates, work with a model that is more realistic to US policies and expectations.
Yeah I don’t see that happening here either. Maybe in some rich areas, like tech/finance hubs, operating like mini-Switzerlands. Even then, the poor will keep voting for disruption, so those hubs will need private security vs the federal government? I just don’t see how this is possible or at all desirable. I think we have to tackle inequality……
> The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons...
> Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization...
I think you're right about that.
> ...a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
> Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.
You're getting off track there.
You also need a democratically responsive government. If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? If you want a Trump, you say "shut up people, the technocrats say you're wrong, and you're going to get what they recommend good and hard." If you want to avoid a Trump in the future, you say, "OK, we'll tighten the border and reduce immigration quotas."
I don't care how smart or correct you are: if you can't make your case to the people and get your policy widespread popular support, it shouldn't be implemented in a democracy, end of story.
A lot of western societies are aging. If you don’t import immigrants, you’re on a timer. The economy slows, quality of life drops, and people elect the far right anyway. It’s happening to Japan right now. I’d set up the safety nets and hope enough people will appreciate the better cost of living and reelect sane politicians.
Of course there are no guarantees. People hated Obamacare and punished democrats so hard they lost the most seats since Eisenhower.
> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
> Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up."
And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.
I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.
You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
> You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
> It does work and made those countries much richer
What, exactly, do you mean by "countries" and "richer"? The monarch is wealthier and more powerful? Some aggregate GDP number went up? More bank deposits?
There are a lot of ways to make the few gain at the expense of the many, and depending on the statistics you look at, that may look like the country becoming richer. However, those kinds of scenarios are one of the things democracy is supposed to prevent.
Yeah exactly, if the US actually took its rule of law seriously, we won't be having this Trump problems because he'd be in prison for the rest of his life.
Yep, his administration took the worst possible approach by waiting so long only to bring these slow milquetoast prosecutions against trump. They should have gone after him and his accomplices immediately, but failing that doing nothing would have been better.
These weak prosecutions did nothing to stop trump and only caused republicans to rally around him.
Sure, but how do the laws get enforced when law enforcement itself has gone rogue? State governors can't deploy their branches of the National Guard to restore Constitutional law and order without risking that the corrupt federal executive will end up taking control of those as well.
Congress is supposed to remove ineffective executives from power, or change the laws/constitution to make the enforcement legal. Some would say they're abdicating those responsibilities.
Oh sure, I'd be one of those people. I was talking about an alternative approach under our system of dual sovereignty. The federal government is currently in gross violation of our Constitution that spells out the relations between the co-sovereigns. Both in terms of good-faith executing the offices laid out in the Constitution document itself, and overtly violating our natural rights including ones described in the Bill of Rights.
It's mostly the same party, politicians, and cheerleaders who have been dismantling those safety nets, while supporting offshoring and massive handouts to the rich (via the asset bubble). The economic issues driving the destructionist anger are themselves the results of primarily Republican policies becoming un-ignoreable. But rather than any sort of self reflection they're just turning the blame to new scapegoats.
This has effectively been a death spiral for the past several decades - blame the government for incompetence while preventing it from doing anything. For example a major reason that so much power accrued to executive agencies in the first place is the trend of Congressional gridlock kicked off by Newt Gingrich.
As a libertarian I have plenty of criticism of the Democratic party as well, but they're not the ones currently wholesale destroying our Constitution.
As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
The contradiction of private vs public interests surfaces when growth/ROI demands become harder to achieve. Marx predicted it as diminishing profit rates [0]. The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations led to the present budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters. This happens in all capitalistic democracies and we hear the same songs everywhere, about more austerity with a xenophobic background.
> As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
And as a libertarian I can emphatically agree. A foundation of libertarianism is freedom of individual choice, and when a significant number of are economically disenfranchised such that they face economic coercion while simply trying to exist, it completely undermines that foundation. And looking at the structure from the top, completely ineffective anti-trust enforcement has made it so there aren't even many choices to choose from.
> The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations lead to the [pressing] budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters
I agree with your description of this trend, as well. I learned long ago that it's not enough to merely push in one direction and assume any results will be positive by construction. Rather you must look at what actually stands to be achieved, in order to avoid merely being a patsy for entrenched interests.
I do question why diminishing profit rates are relevant though. Even if profits had generally been going up, wouldn't the desire for even more wealth lead to the same lobbying / looting pattern?
I haven't really studied Marx though. A quick reading of your link, and trying to restate what I took away in my own terms: As labor becomes less important to capital, then capital is less inclined to invest in the labor pool? That does basically fit the overall trends.
As far as I can tell, there's been "mass immigration" since before there was an "America". Colonial settlers in the 17th century, along with Africans taken against their will. Assorted European immigrants in the 18th, along with Asian laborers and Mexicans taken against their will. So on and so forth. There have always been "immigrants". The US and all the other countries in the Americas are immigrant nations.
Welfare state and loose illegal immigration enforcement are at odds policies. Remember in US illegal immigrants can still get WIC and public schooling and their reward for popping out a child is the child now has citizenship and the benefits of such-- those European countries you mention don't normally offer unrestricted jus soli citizenship.
It's 'safety net' itself that helps fuel the immigration rage and delivers people into the hands of the right-wing.
If you work for L3Harris, TechOps Specialty Vehicles (TOSV), Clearview AI, Paragon Solutions, AE Industrial, RedLattice, Magnet Forensics, Grayshift, Penlink, Flock Safety, Ring, LexisNexis, or Palantir, you are a fascist.
How many times do you believe immigration agents showed up door to door with riot gear and rifles back then? When it was caught on camera during the Clinton administration it was one of the most polarizing images of his presidency
That one was controversial not because it was the deportation of an illegal alien rather there were custody issues (abduction accusations) as well as the complication of persecution in the home country —in other words there were multiple issues complicating the deportation. Was he a political prisoner, was he abducted to the US?
When the Miami Herald won 2 Pulitzers for its coverage of the incident, do you think it was because people were highly interested in the international custody issues? I’d argue that people were more piqued at why 100+ armed immigration agents needed to raid a family’s home
In a free country, if people think the president is crummy, they are supposed to be able to say they want the president to resign or be removed. In the USA this is by design and has been provided for in advance intentionally since the beginning.
Without fear of retribution, this is the USA remember.
While protesting or not.
Whether for or against the President or not.
Retribution is really bad but fear alone is pretty bad too, it can be a complete terror as we have seen in some countries sometimes, where dictatorship rises it always leads to terrible shithole outcomes. Even when they don't employ storm troopers. But there's no other way to be more communist than having a dictator of any kind, no matter what they call it.
Thinking about pure terror, how do you think terrorists got their name?
Storm trooper tactics have always struck terror too, that's their job.
Oh yeah, almost forgot, the USA is supposed to be more free than anywhere else.
As we have seen, not every President or administration official can perform in that league.
From the very point that 4 protestors were killed, Nixon was actually toast.
He just wasn't burnt to a crisp until after he was re-elected.
What were people thinking? Nobody would admit to voting for him a second time after he was proven dishonest though.
Of course equally stupid things have happened which are getting plain to see for more people all the time.
You might not be aware of it. It was there though. I had friends going to support families in detention in San Antonio in 2010/11.
Consider that it might be possible you're the one who is actually ignoring stuff based on a political position? And that rather than ignoring it on a Dem/GOP line, the line is between "normal, real adult electoral politics" and all the folks actually doing work to oppose these evil things directly.
A lot of my Democrat-voting friend easily forget Standing Rock or Furguson, but I doubt the people who were there do. By the same token, those same things have oft been forgotten or dismissed by the GOP-identifying friends of mine.
The problem is once you start opening a history book (that's not, say, published for teaching children in Texas) it gets really hard to thing to say "the law is static and started 15 years ago" or even "it's a law so it has ethical weight", and those things are hard to track for most folks and the implications are almost traumatic.
I get that your question is real and a struggle, because that's how it is for many folks in my life, well-intentioned and smart folks who were raised in a system that didn't seem like a problem to them because it fit them well enough, or they were so circumcised by it at an early age that they don't even notice what they've been cut away from.
But for a lot of us, the fact that a bunch of yall got together and decided to vote on who to kick out of the places where we live doesn't hae a lot of moral ethical weight.
Consider that one reason half the folks in the us don't vote is because we know that neither side is going to do anything resembling a good outcome and signing our names to things we don't agree with isn't just a lie but makes us complicit in our own expolitation.
And as yall have gotten ever more violent in practicng yalls "democratically produced" decision, those of us who have, like, an actual moral position are moving ever close to emulating John Brown.
So before the death of the protester everyone was honky dori with the deportations? It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens, but there is a large minority that only want criminal aliens deported and a much smaller militant minority that don’t want any illegal aliens deported regardless of severity of crimes committed.
Probably based on Trump winning the last presidential election. Which doesnt tell us if thats the only reason they voted for him or the primary, but some people just generalize every vote as such.
Check CNN polling. It’s been pretty consistent over the last year or two:
56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, according to various surveys from late 2025 and early 2026, including data often discussed in connection with CNN analysis and other outlets.
> It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
Your "evidence":
> 56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally [emphasis added]
You do realize that the polling does not support your original claim, right? That "illegally" bit is rather critical and, notably, missing in your original statement.
The subject is people who entered illegally or have remained past their visas. Illegal aliens under federal law. Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents. They may want to limit some form of migration but that’s not the question and that’s not what ICE are concerned with. It’s not even in their scope in any way.
> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.
I agree, but that's not what you wrote in your original comment and were asked to defend and then failed to defend. You claimed that 60% of the population wants all aliens deported. The word "all" there means your claim included legal residents. Now you're backpedaling, I guess.
> ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
That statement covers both illegal and legal aliens. Do you not know what the words you wrote mean? Why are you lying about your words that are plainly visible on this page if you do know what they mean?
Which is interesting when coupled with the fact that the people enthusiastically carrying that out is CBP agents (the people that murdered Pretti) at 50% latino/hispanic, and ICE also disproportionately latino. Why are minorities so overrepresented in the racist forces?
Imagine waiting in line for a decade, going through a grueling process, following the rules and immigrating legally, only to show up and see hordes of criminal invaders who thought they were exempt from the same.
Why do that. Just get popped out by an illegal on US soil. boom, you are a citizen, and you can join the border patrol and smugly declare "ha you didn't wait in line."
But by the same token - the obstruction of federal agents who are carrying out their lawful mandate was also in that same place.
True, the implementation was messed up. Those unlawful deportation cases should have been the ones to protest. Not demonizing all of ICE or flying Mexican flags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying Mexican flags. Americans fly flags of other countries all the time. There are English flags all over a nearby pub in my area. Heck, there is an entire national holiday for celebrating the Irish—a holiday for which the Defense Department made an exception to its policy of avoiding cultural observances.
The overreach by the current administration is what is driving the volume of protest activity. Specifically the high-volume targeting of lawful residents and Hispanic-looking citizens, and the “show your papers” geographical sweeps—none of which fit typical American notions of what is lawful.
To some extent this overreach is intentional, as an exercise in generating social media content, and to intentionally make people upset as a pretext for deploying greater levels of force.
It also seems politically performative since the current administration is focusing efforts in Chicago, Minnesota, Maine, etc, not Texas or Florida where there are far more undocumented immigrants.
There were protests against the Obama deportation campaign but they were far smaller because the campaign itself stayed within bounds that fit most people’s notions of lawfulness and propriety. They also did not make the huge mistake of deciding in advance to all-out defend every single bad decision by every law enforcement agent. That alone is a huge factor in the pushback that officials are getting, even from GOP and 2A leaders.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with flying a Mexican flag - if you are trying to create a lighting rod to attract all the anti-immigrant vitriol. It's the same kind of dumb as "defund the police" - actively harmful.
And I strongly suspect that if I flew a Russian flag in the very liberal and tolerant Bay Area my house might just accidentally catch fire. Despite my right to do so.
Okay let's say it is murder (regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges)
What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Protesting? Civil disobedience? Thought you had freedoms. Freedom means being met with an appropriate legal reaction in case your acts are illegal, not death.
I struggle to understand how you feel that in a free society people can't react to perceived injustices, and act in protest of it. A free society doesn't force everyone to bow down to the powers that be for fear of injury or death.
Empathy, that is what you appear to be missing in your equation. If I see someone about to chuck a baby off a cliff, I hope I step out of my normal comfort zone and do something. In that case it is probably pretty clear, and this one seems grey for some people, but for others, and myself include, ICE is affecting people's lives in ways that is unacceptable and we need to do something.
Masked people rushing a car and drawing weapons and the driver panicking. Now ask me who appears to escalate the entire situation. Or what the actual penalty for impeding a lane of traffic is.
From what I've read, there was some kind of community watch and/or protest going on for ICE there, patrol cars, etc. But you're saying she had the suspicion that a few masked thugs had accidentally gotten lost within the police operation?
We are too far past the fascist crap too entertain this stupidity. I get it, you don't see a problem with any of it. Now go enjoy your dumb little life and I am going to go back trying to find ways to help make friends and family I have in the Minneapolis area feel safe again.
Everything is more nuanced than your all-or-nothing any of it designation.
You say that there was no getaway performed and the person trying to drive away wasn't aware that it was law enforcement that had ordered her to stay. Sure, she didn't deserve to die. But if you charge towards an officer, or reasonably appear to do so, then these things happen. Why didn't she peacefully stay put instead?
I've seen the actual videos. While tragic, then she was trying to drive away, not obeying the approaching officer's orders. At that moment, the officer towards she was driving was the one that shot her.
It also seemed that right before the event she was doing some kind of traffic regulation there which is why the officers approached her.
Do you think the shots through the driver window, after the agent was 100% out of the way of the vehicle, were justified?
From the medical examiner we know it was one of these two shots that killed her. We know they did not come in through the front windshield when the agent was at the front quarter panel. We see them clearly occur on video while the officer is definitively out of the path of the vehicle.
It also is quite clear from the results that shooting her did not make the situation safer after he was clear, either - it directly causes the car to accelerate while not under the control of a living human being.
Personally, I would still argue about even the first shot - but I have yet to be able to find any common ground in discussions with people that defend the 2nd and 3rd shot.
You can't start at the point the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her. That's equivalent to equating legality with morality, which doesn't work when talking about what ought to be. Rather you have to examine the entire situation, which was an extreme escalation by ICE in response to what was essentially protesting.
There was no pretext to execute her. It's when she started driving (even spun the wheels I think) towards the officer were shots fired. In your mind, does police getaway equate with protesting now?
The pretext is deliberately standing in a position such that if the car moves he can claim to be acting in "self defense". This was directly contrary to ICE's own procedures about how to approach vehicles. This particular agent had even previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles, so it's a reasonable assumption that this positioning was fully deliberate - the agent set the situation up so that he'd have an excuse to kill the next driver who didn't respect his authorituh.
If you look at the video, then the woman turns the front of the car towards the agent, who comes from the other side. Do you mean that he knew the movement that was going to happen and risked his life to do that.
Would you say the woman was in her right to attempt a getaway?
"As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her."
Sitting in front of a screen and Monday-morning-quarterbacking, it's easy to say that driving off was wrong. But nobody really knows what they themselves would do in a fight or flight situation when being assaulted by a group of masked men, especially when one of the group is aggressive enough that they are indeed going to end up killing you.
The point is these "public servants" should not be escalating to create such high-stakes situations in the first place, especially with regards to citizens who are protesting. There is zero excuse for it, and under any halfway-sane administration such an event would be, at the very least, a moment of investigation and reflection.
Wut? You do realize that being in the presence of law enforcement officers is much different than the situation of being actively assaulted by them, right?
For example, the other day I interacted with a few police officers in person by virtue of being tangentially-involved with a car crash. I laughed and joked with them, then went about my business. But if they had instead been surrounding me with guns drawn, it would have taken me the rest of the day to come down from that.
When driving towards a law enforcement officer, it is you assaulting them, not the other way around. Fleeing is against the law as well. Why did the woman attempt this? Ot, if it was so dangerous, what was she doing there?
You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?
Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.
Taliban, the people at the top are acting in a calculated and rational manner. That is why the US overthrew the Taliban to be replaced by the Taliban. They're not morons, and they are not impulsive at least at a high level. They are cold and calculated and know how to use calculated violence and appeal to the populace. You may dislike this is the case but with Taliban I feel this is indisputable, despite numerous tactical blunders on their end.
Pretti looked more like a raging lunatic. He knew CBP/ICE were homicidal maniacs and the slightest thing will set them off. He knew that acting like that will be interpreted by them as a 'shot at the King.' His actions looked impulsive and ultimately threw his life away getting very little for what he traded. And he basically submitted his head for execution after letting himself be disarmed, and I'm left wondering -- what was the point?
No one wants to be like the guy swinging at tail lights and spitting like a toddler with a cosmetic accessory gun tucked in their waistband which they then surrendered and offered their head for execution -- and for what?
Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The point is that you fight against injustice even in the face of state violence. Every movement that is a threat to existing power structures faces violence. Take a look at the labor movement in the US, the civil rights movement in the US, the anti-war movement in the US.
> Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The new movement is decentralized and doesn't rely on figureheads.
Why would they find it inappropriate? It's fun for them and they're guaranteed to get away with it. All the opposition does is vote harder and ask nicely that the state not do it again.
Worst case, someone sues and it's paid by OPM. But having been the subject of brutality by CBP, I can tell you it's almost impossible to find a lawyer (all the ones I talked to had already tried and lost so many times they wouldn't take a case, though maybe you have better luck now since immigration law is in vogue) and if you do your chances of overcoming supremacy clause and immunities are next to nill. (Lady in a more egregious case but otherwise similar facts to mine, was raped via hand because the argument was there was drugs up there -- she lost even though there weren't any).
The reason why Trump chose ICE/CBP as his gestapo is precisely because they have excellent overlap of both being largely carved out from constitutional protections via both precedent and their situation as an executive nominally border facing police and the fact they answer to POTUS and can function as an army without running afoul of posse comitatus. Trump simply called checkmate on the populace by taking advantage of 100+ years of precedent, law, and jurisprudence that perfectly teed up the opportunity.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Maybe an order by another agent to drive off?
But also, it's not hard to see why you can't understand it - because none of the questions are based in reality, all the descriptions are false/twisted, it's like "I don't understand why the fans of that team that lost celebrate the win" when in reality the team won, that's why, easy to understand
>regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges
Disagreement from a class that refuses to disagree with their leader and no charges from the administration that committed the crime.
>What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Presumably they thought the problem was that they were in the way, for which driving off would resolve.
>What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
The purpose of sending ICE there was to intimidate people, and dear leader was quite open about that. So we might rephrase the question as "why does a deliberate intimidation attempt lead people to feel intimidated?"
>It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
Really? So then think of politics like sport, with the dems and repubs being two teams, and ICE being like fans from one team, and protesters are fans of the other, and they go out in the street to support their side. Now imagine that instead of your team losing being completely inconsequential, it could lead to you being poorer, your rights being taken away, etc. Now you understand politics, congratulations.
America started with the Boston Tea Party. If you don't like our allergy to authority that considers itself above us and our God given rights, you are free to leave.
This is very clearly a loaded question and not a good faith one. You are using the format of a question to express a rhetorical position. You can't just tack on "this is an honest question".
Your premise is incorrect. ICE's conduct is illegal, they are executing people in the streets and deporting US citizens. This is against the law. The majority of US citizens did not vote for Trumpin in 2024, and federal elections do not explicitly involve a vote on policy.
Obama actually pioneered non-judicial deportations. Under his administration, 75% of removals took place without the established immigration hearing process.
Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings, that is, a final order of removal being issued by an immigration "judge." This is generally ignored by news reporting.
The news does not contextualize what is going on. Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism. But it's not only a problem with this story, but most stories. Selective outrage is applied based on the cause and enemy du jour. You are honestly better off not watching the news unless you are willing to do extensive deep dives on a topic, because regardless of your party affiliation or personal feelings or what outlet you subscribe to you are being fed a line of propagandistic BS.
> Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism
"Border patrol murders unarmed subdued citizen in broad daylight on film and then lies about it" I think is pretty unprecedented. at least as far as I know.
> Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings
There’s more than a thousand fatal US police shootings every year with various levels of justification, many impacting people totally innocent of anything, even if we accept your propagandized mischaracterization of what happened. (I don’t blame you for this. It’s being pushed hard, and the other sides propaganda is no more truthful.)
Aside from regular shootings, Obama (perhaps not so famously) killed a 16 year old US citizen overseas in a country we were not at war with, then refused to explain why. Off the record, officials said he should have had a better father (who had been killed in an earlier drone strike.) Somehow, everyone failed to turn out for this and similar abuses of power.
There’s nothing new or unusual about this.
> CITATION NEEDED.
I already provided you a citation showing that 75% of deportations in a prior administration happens without any due process, showing that even if this statement wasn’t true (obviously the weaker version is) then it’s not at all unprecedented. Yet all the rage is in the here and now.
It’s also worth noting that, as I alluded to, immigration court is administrative anyway, not judicial. “Immigration judges” are just DoJ employee, not judges.
The most concerning thing about this is how many people have been radicalized into believing committing felonies by interfering with, harassing, and assaulting LEO is not only legal but safe. Even blocking them is a crime. At this point we’re at a situation where millions of people believe the laws we passed as a representative democracy are so illegitimate violence - not just peaceful protest - is justified against the state. This is a really bad sign and it’s getting people killed.
> There’s more than a thousand fatal US police shootings every year with various levels of justification, many impacting people totally innocent of anything, even if we accept your propagandized mischaracterization of what happened. (I don’t blame you for this. It’s being pushed hard, and the other sides propaganda is no more truthful.)
What usually happens when a municipal, county, or state law enforcement officer (and until recently, federal) kills someone in the line of duty?
Most of the time there’s a brief internal investigation and then nothing happens to them, because they’re given enormous latitude and discretion, even when the victim was totally innocent. If you want a very notorious and similarly politicized example, look at what happened to the federal agent that killed Vicki Weaver: the feds refused to do anything to them, and the local case was initially shut down due to sovereign immunity for federal agents and then later abandoned.
If you want a more recent famous case, consider the shooting of Craig Robertson: the FBI says he was armed and shot him dead, agents cleared after an internal investigation and we’ll never know if he was armed or not (I’d guess yes.) That’s it.
and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
You seem to conveniently ignore the 4th amendment violations and the ignored court orders.
Obama had “fast-track” deportations but also convenient ignore that this administration is doing it under the aliens enemies act which is a wartime authorization and most importantly deporting people to “third” countries.
What fourth amendment violations do you think are unprecedented?
The Alien Enemies Act is one of our oldest laws and was passed by John Adams during peacetime to suppress perceived foreign influence from migrants.
Deportations to third countries are pretty clearly the only solution to cases where immigrants have a final order of removal that has been suspended due to problems in their home country, or where their home country refuses to accept them; the alternative of leaving them in a perpetual limbo is absurd. What else would you do?
The FBI in particular is notorious for warrantless raids and break-ins, a practice that has seemingly subsided more because of the modern ease of electronic surveillance than because of the bad publicity and court actions.
I personally think that mass deportation is a foolish policy. I also accept that it can be done legally. However, the current actions clearly exceed legal boundaries.
4. The administration is openly slandering citizens - claiming they are terrorists without evidence.
5. ICE is conducting mass surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike.
There are certainly liberals who broadly oppose deportation and who would protest any mass deportation project. However, there, I believe, a lot of us who would grudgingly accept as foolish-but-legal a deportation program that followed the law. What is broadly - across all political stripes - despised is this despotic overreach. And that's what driving people into the streets.
I wasn't outraged until ICE kidnapped two US citizens at gunpoint from their jobs at target, refused to verify citizenship, dragged them away in unmarked vans, beat the shit out of them and dumped them in the snow.
Edit 2: Before reading on don't bother, this person isn't American so has no understanding of what the words they are typing mean in the American system, that immigration judges aren't Article III criminal judges, that immigration violations are civil violations not criminal, etc.
Being honest/truthful really doesn't matter to you folks, does it? You made a claim that was bullshit to try and sway people. And are willing to sacrifice the unimportant 'due process' that we have in the USA. You all really believe in nothing, and especially don't believe in America.
Edit: You are trying to confuse/blend 'deporting criminals' to be something other than the American understanding of criminal, and you know it. I'm not wasting further time on your bad faith word spinning. You don't understand/care about the American system, you just want to abuse words to paint a false picture. Sad that we have so many people like you in our country that don't' understand it/believe in it, and would give up the security we tried to build into it at the cost of blood for your personal short term political reasons.
Isn't "due process" for an illegal immigrant already happened in the sense that they are determined to be an illegal?
Trump had deporting illegals in his campaign and got mandate from the people. You don't seem to believe in democracy instead.
Edit: The note about pending charges is just a note. Trump's platform was to deport all illegal immigrants, not only who have been convicted of other crimes as well (they did start with the convicted though). You don't need to waste time, but you need to be able to point to where the bad faith arguments and word spinning are. To me it looks like the democrats are mobilizing those who don't quite understand what losing an election means in a democratic country. If your view is that American system is something else, e.g, "only what the Democratic wants to do should be done", then you would need to push this through your system.
You talk about America yet don't understand our most basic concept of law. "These people just haven't been convicted - yet." is so fucking anti-American it's crazy to see someone just drop it as a rebuttal here.
You added that after your claim: "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals"
You then try to wordsmith criminal into to 'illegal immigrants'. These people are being deported on Civil law violations. Not criminal. If it was criminal ICE wouldn't be able to use immigration courts and their special carvouts for not following the constitution. You don't seem to understand any American basic civics in addition to your not understanding your own statement 'ICE is also deporting mostly criminals'
You're further expanding makes your original statement obvious bad faith spin that wasn't true and that you didn't actually care about.
I have never been registered as a Democrat in my life, and was libertarian for the majority of it. Again you ignorantly make statements you have zero idea are true or not. Democracy isn't 'I won, I get to throw away the system of laws and violate the constitution'.
Edit: Got it, by saying "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals" what you meant was everyone they deport they have determined (in Immigration court and by immigration judges not real Article III judges on civil violations and not in Criminal court under criminal law violations sentenced by real Article III Judges) 'are criminals'. You don't understand American civics. You don't understand the definition of the word 'criminal'. You don't understand Democracy doesn't mean 'free to do whatever you want when elected' mob rule.
Right. The original poster who was saying that only ("only"!) 29% of January deportees have been convicted, that is correct. To this I added that that percentage doesn't account for ongoing charges (also true, right?). No disagreement in the percentage arguments.
The rest of the immigrants are still illegally in the country, no? Wasn't deporting them on the campaign platform that got the mandate? What is "the system" if not this?
If your interpretation of the constitution is that as long as you are "protesting" then you can do anything, be anywhere, including whistle along an ongoing police operation then I can tell you that that interpretation is not correct. If it were, any criminal (not need be immigrant) would say that they were "protesting", while robbing a store or doing any other random actually criminal thing.
Edit: I get what you are saying, too, but the practical solution isn't to keep current illegal immigrants in, as in that case anyone attempting to enter legally should just switch to enter illegally as that is more efficient. (I.e, if there is some country-wide entry rate, then the currently illegally entered have succeeded by jumping the line.)
The above is also the platform that was voted into office not long ago. This does look like democracy to me.
What mandate? Trump did not secure a large enough victory for anyone to reasonably claim he was handed a mandate. Did the Republicans ever respect Biden's "mandate" on his issues, with a similar EV victory and a huge popular vote victory? Hell, Trump didn't even get half the popular vote.
Nor do single issues get mandates even when a president does have an overwhelming victory. Voters do not select specific issues to vote on, they vote for a person based on their overall platform.
Trump also talked about how he was going to focus on deporting violent criminals. And now that that is no longer the case, the goalpost is being moved to... any crimes. And now again to anyone that has outstanding charges, but no conviction. And now it's hey, they're here illegally, so that's a crime, right! We'll have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of those being deported also entered using a legal process that puts them in limbo - ICE has been grabbing people showing up at their immigration court cases.
I'd call it the presidential victory mandate. I guess he shouldn't actually do what he promised as the victory wasn't large enough? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
W̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶d̶d̶y̶.̶ We were founded on the fucking Boston Tea Party. Yeah, we trade off conveniences in policing for freedom of the people. I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶v̶e̶. There are plenty of non-freedom loving countries out there.
I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶r̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶i̶v̶i̶c̶s̶. You seem kind of ignorant to like the basic premise of our nation or how/why we arrived at it.
Edit: My bad for being hard on you. I assumed you were American and we were talking from a common framework of understanding. American democracy was created to prevent mob rule, not enable it. You can run on whatever you want, it doesn't mean that what you run on is allowed under our system of laws, even if popular with the mob. Most of our families were forced to flee to the USA because 'the mob' wanted us dead, or to criminalize our existence, or force us to change religions. WE FUCKING HATE MOB RULE, AND WE FUCKING HATE KINGS WITH UNCHECKED POWER. Immigration law is not criminal law in the USA (it's a loophole to apply lower standards than the Constitution requires). Immigration courts aren't finding someone as being a criminal, they are finding a civil law violation. Immigration judges aren't real judges. Article III Judges are real judges as empowered by the Constitution.
I don't live in the US. Also I edited my parent answer (but no need to edit yours. Continue below at will.)
I maintain that what was voted in the office a year ago was to deport the illegals, not only those who have committed other crimes as well. I might just as well say that you are ignorant of the democratic process instead. And if you think that the US will be a "free entry" country as it was after the discovery of the continent then I guess you live at a part of the country where the newly arrived immigrants aren't disturbing your life yet.
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
People really need to get things together and investigate these crimes committed against the people.
In no world did we ever allow the government to track our movements or what we think. People are free and are not bound to laws that the gov will simply trample over when they feel like it.
Use encryption, don't tell plans, and keep fighting. We have got this.
Found here
https://archive.ph/2026.01.30-102615/https://www.nytimes.com...
This should not be legal.
Trump, ICE, and all their accomplices don’t give a shit about legality. A law that isn’t being enforced is useless.
The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization, a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.
If you want to bring in something from the overall European region, Switzerland would be a more appropriate model. Instead of trying to implement constitutionally impossible rules and mandates, work with a model that is more realistic to US policies and expectations.
> High trust, consensus governance
Yeah I don’t see that happening here either. Maybe in some rich areas, like tech/finance hubs, operating like mini-Switzerlands. Even then, the poor will keep voting for disruption, so those hubs will need private security vs the federal government? I just don’t see how this is possible or at all desirable. I think we have to tackle inequality……
Can you give specific examples of what you mean by that?
> The problem with these threads is everybody wants to complain about Trump, but nobody wants to talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for European-style welfare states and pay for them with high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons...
> Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization...
I think you're right about that.
> ...a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
> Edit: Looking at the comments below you also need a MUCH better education system. FYI 99% of the time immigration is great for the economy, which is why the US has been wholesale accepting immigrants for a very long time.
You're getting off track there.
You also need a democratically responsive government. If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? If you want a Trump, you say "shut up people, the technocrats say you're wrong, and you're going to get what they recommend good and hard." If you want to avoid a Trump in the future, you say, "OK, we'll tighten the border and reduce immigration quotas."
I don't care how smart or correct you are: if you can't make your case to the people and get your policy widespread popular support, it shouldn't be implemented in a democracy, end of story.
A lot of western societies are aging. If you don’t import immigrants, you’re on a timer. The economy slows, quality of life drops, and people elect the far right anyway. It’s happening to Japan right now. I’d set up the safety nets and hope enough people will appreciate the better cost of living and reelect sane politicians.
Of course there are no guarantees. People hated Obamacare and punished democrats so hard they lost the most seats since Eisenhower.
> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do?
> Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.
There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up."
And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.
I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.
You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
> You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.
> It does work and made those countries much richer
What, exactly, do you mean by "countries" and "richer"? The monarch is wealthier and more powerful? Some aggregate GDP number went up? More bank deposits?
There are a lot of ways to make the few gain at the expense of the many, and depending on the statistics you look at, that may look like the country becoming richer. However, those kinds of scenarios are one of the things democracy is supposed to prevent.
laws need to be enforced. that's it. 90% of trump horror goes away with just that simple thing
What happened to enforcing the law on those who assaulted the Capitol?
Yeah exactly, if the US actually took its rule of law seriously, we won't be having this Trump problems because he'd be in prison for the rest of his life.
Biden really dropped the ball here.
Yep, his administration took the worst possible approach by waiting so long only to bring these slow milquetoast prosecutions against trump. They should have gone after him and his accomplices immediately, but failing that doing nothing would have been better.
These weak prosecutions did nothing to stop trump and only caused republicans to rally around him.
it would have helped a lot ! we'd not have an insurrectionist as president, which is illegal!
Sure, but how do the laws get enforced when law enforcement itself has gone rogue? State governors can't deploy their branches of the National Guard to restore Constitutional law and order without risking that the corrupt federal executive will end up taking control of those as well.
Congress is supposed to remove ineffective executives from power, or change the laws/constitution to make the enforcement legal. Some would say they're abdicating those responsibilities.
Oh sure, I'd be one of those people. I was talking about an alternative approach under our system of dual sovereignty. The federal government is currently in gross violation of our Constitution that spells out the relations between the co-sovereigns. Both in terms of good-faith executing the offices laid out in the Constitution document itself, and overtly violating our natural rights including ones described in the Bill of Rights.
It's mostly the same party, politicians, and cheerleaders who have been dismantling those safety nets, while supporting offshoring and massive handouts to the rich (via the asset bubble). The economic issues driving the destructionist anger are themselves the results of primarily Republican policies becoming un-ignoreable. But rather than any sort of self reflection they're just turning the blame to new scapegoats.
This has effectively been a death spiral for the past several decades - blame the government for incompetence while preventing it from doing anything. For example a major reason that so much power accrued to executive agencies in the first place is the trend of Congressional gridlock kicked off by Newt Gingrich.
As a libertarian I have plenty of criticism of the Democratic party as well, but they're not the ones currently wholesale destroying our Constitution.
As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
The contradiction of private vs public interests surfaces when growth/ROI demands become harder to achieve. Marx predicted it as diminishing profit rates [0]. The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations led to the present budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters. This happens in all capitalistic democracies and we hear the same songs everywhere, about more austerity with a xenophobic background.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...
> As a leftist, i can tell you that any kind of unchecked capitalism or inequality threatens democracies and their constitutions in the long run.
And as a libertarian I can emphatically agree. A foundation of libertarianism is freedom of individual choice, and when a significant number of are economically disenfranchised such that they face economic coercion while simply trying to exist, it completely undermines that foundation. And looking at the structure from the top, completely ineffective anti-trust enforcement has made it so there aren't even many choices to choose from.
> The decades of lowering taxes for rich individuals and corporations lead to the [pressing] budget pressure on institutions, civic decay and agitated uninformed voters
I agree with your description of this trend, as well. I learned long ago that it's not enough to merely push in one direction and assume any results will be positive by construction. Rather you must look at what actually stands to be achieved, in order to avoid merely being a patsy for entrenched interests.
I do question why diminishing profit rates are relevant though. Even if profits had generally been going up, wouldn't the desire for even more wealth lead to the same lobbying / looting pattern?
I haven't really studied Marx though. A quick reading of your link, and trying to restate what I took away in my own terms: As labor becomes less important to capital, then capital is less inclined to invest in the labor pool? That does basically fit the overall trends.
[flagged]
As far as I can tell, there's been "mass immigration" since before there was an "America". Colonial settlers in the 17th century, along with Africans taken against their will. Assorted European immigrants in the 18th, along with Asian laborers and Mexicans taken against their will. So on and so forth. There have always been "immigrants". The US and all the other countries in the Americas are immigrant nations.
Way too many Dead Rabbits thinking they're Bowery Boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4_4p15iGlU
Welfare state and loose illegal immigration enforcement are at odds policies. Remember in US illegal immigrants can still get WIC and public schooling and their reward for popping out a child is the child now has citizenship and the benefits of such-- those European countries you mention don't normally offer unrestricted jus soli citizenship.
It's 'safety net' itself that helps fuel the immigration rage and delivers people into the hands of the right-wing.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2026/01/29/chicago-natio...
post on https://icemap.app anonymously
icemap.xyz
icemap.dev
[flagged]
[flagged]
his post is deleted, what did he say? lol
It's not deleted, it's [flagged][dead]. You can see it if you turn on "showdead" in your profile.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
If you work for L3Harris, TechOps Specialty Vehicles (TOSV), Clearview AI, Paragon Solutions, AE Industrial, RedLattice, Magnet Forensics, Grayshift, Penlink, Flock Safety, Ring, LexisNexis, or Palantir, you are a fascist.
You may also enjoy this in-depth video about other tech companies that profit from death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsR9ojQ66E
2 minutes in it's already heartbreaking as a dad to a 5 yo.
Please list the companies! I’m keeping it in a file and making sure I am not connected to any of them.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
How many times do you believe immigration agents showed up door to door with riot gear and rifles back then? When it was caught on camera during the Clinton administration it was one of the most polarizing images of his presidency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
That one was controversial not because it was the deportation of an illegal alien rather there were custody issues (abduction accusations) as well as the complication of persecution in the home country —in other words there were multiple issues complicating the deportation. Was he a political prisoner, was he abducted to the US?
When the Miami Herald won 2 Pulitzers for its coverage of the incident, do you think it was because people were highly interested in the international custody issues? I’d argue that people were more piqued at why 100+ armed immigration agents needed to raid a family’s home
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-48
https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/dramatic-photo-of...
In a free country, if people think the president is crummy, they are supposed to be able to say they want the president to resign or be removed. In the USA this is by design and has been provided for in advance intentionally since the beginning.
Without fear of retribution, this is the USA remember.
While protesting or not.
Whether for or against the President or not.
Retribution is really bad but fear alone is pretty bad too, it can be a complete terror as we have seen in some countries sometimes, where dictatorship rises it always leads to terrible shithole outcomes. Even when they don't employ storm troopers. But there's no other way to be more communist than having a dictator of any kind, no matter what they call it.
Thinking about pure terror, how do you think terrorists got their name?
Storm trooper tactics have always struck terror too, that's their job.
Oh yeah, almost forgot, the USA is supposed to be more free than anywhere else.
As we have seen, not every President or administration official can perform in that league.
From the very point that 4 protestors were killed, Nixon was actually toast.
He just wasn't burnt to a crisp until after he was re-elected.
What were people thinking? Nobody would admit to voting for him a second time after he was proven dishonest though.
Of course equally stupid things have happened which are getting plain to see for more people all the time.
You might not be aware of it. It was there though. I had friends going to support families in detention in San Antonio in 2010/11.
Consider that it might be possible you're the one who is actually ignoring stuff based on a political position? And that rather than ignoring it on a Dem/GOP line, the line is between "normal, real adult electoral politics" and all the folks actually doing work to oppose these evil things directly.
A lot of my Democrat-voting friend easily forget Standing Rock or Furguson, but I doubt the people who were there do. By the same token, those same things have oft been forgotten or dismissed by the GOP-identifying friends of mine.
The problem is once you start opening a history book (that's not, say, published for teaching children in Texas) it gets really hard to thing to say "the law is static and started 15 years ago" or even "it's a law so it has ethical weight", and those things are hard to track for most folks and the implications are almost traumatic.
I get that your question is real and a struggle, because that's how it is for many folks in my life, well-intentioned and smart folks who were raised in a system that didn't seem like a problem to them because it fit them well enough, or they were so circumcised by it at an early age that they don't even notice what they've been cut away from.
But for a lot of us, the fact that a bunch of yall got together and decided to vote on who to kick out of the places where we live doesn't hae a lot of moral ethical weight.
Consider that one reason half the folks in the us don't vote is because we know that neither side is going to do anything resembling a good outcome and signing our names to things we don't agree with isn't just a lie but makes us complicit in our own expolitation.
And as yall have gotten ever more violent in practicng yalls "democratically produced" decision, those of us who have, like, an actual moral position are moving ever close to emulating John Brown.
That's easy. In the same place all the murdering from ICE agents during Obama era was.
So before the death of the protester everyone was honky dori with the deportations? It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens, but there is a large minority that only want criminal aliens deported and a much smaller militant minority that don’t want any illegal aliens deported regardless of severity of crimes committed.
It is absolutely not the case that 60% of the population wants all non-citizens deported. On what do you base your claim?
Probably based on Trump winning the last presidential election. Which doesnt tell us if thats the only reason they voted for him or the primary, but some people just generalize every vote as such.
[dead]
Check CNN polling. It’s been pretty consistent over the last year or two:
56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, according to various surveys from late 2025 and early 2026, including data often discussed in connection with CNN analysis and other outlets.
Your original claim:
> It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
Your "evidence":
> 56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally [emphasis added]
You do realize that the polling does not support your original claim, right? That "illegally" bit is rather critical and, notably, missing in your original statement.
The subject is people who entered illegally or have remained past their visas. Illegal aliens under federal law. Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents. They may want to limit some form of migration but that’s not the question and that’s not what ICE are concerned with. It’s not even in their scope in any way.
> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.
I agree, but that's not what you wrote in your original comment and were asked to defend and then failed to defend. You claimed that 60% of the population wants all aliens deported. The word "all" there means your claim included legal residents. Now you're backpedaling, I guess.
If you read further down you see I reference illegal aliens. Thats the jist.
That's not what you wrote, though. You wrote:
> ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
That statement covers both illegal and legal aliens. Do you not know what the words you wrote mean? Why are you lying about your words that are plainly visible on this page if you do know what they mean?
> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.
The kooks seem to be running the show.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dhs-100-million-deportations-...
A common technique used by illegal immigration sympathizers is to artfully conflate the two for argument's sake.
A common technique used by racists is to pretend they are only care about illegal immigration.
Which is interesting when coupled with the fact that the people enthusiastically carrying that out is CBP agents (the people that murdered Pretti) at 50% latino/hispanic, and ICE also disproportionately latino. Why are minorities so overrepresented in the racist forces?
"Murder" is a very specific form of homicide and is both legally and morally unlikely to be the correct term here.
Ok. Homicidal racist forces, disproportionately manned by minorities, who want to stomp on other minorities.
Imagine waiting in line for a decade, going through a grueling process, following the rules and immigrating legally, only to show up and see hordes of criminal invaders who thought they were exempt from the same.
Why do that. Just get popped out by an illegal on US soil. boom, you are a citizen, and you can join the border patrol and smugly declare "ha you didn't wait in line."
Here's to hoping the Supreme Court can fix this loophole that almost no other developed nation in the entire world still allows!
But by the same token - the obstruction of federal agents who are carrying out their lawful mandate was also in that same place.
True, the implementation was messed up. Those unlawful deportation cases should have been the ones to protest. Not demonizing all of ICE or flying Mexican flags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying Mexican flags. Americans fly flags of other countries all the time. There are English flags all over a nearby pub in my area. Heck, there is an entire national holiday for celebrating the Irish—a holiday for which the Defense Department made an exception to its policy of avoiding cultural observances.
The overreach by the current administration is what is driving the volume of protest activity. Specifically the high-volume targeting of lawful residents and Hispanic-looking citizens, and the “show your papers” geographical sweeps—none of which fit typical American notions of what is lawful.
To some extent this overreach is intentional, as an exercise in generating social media content, and to intentionally make people upset as a pretext for deploying greater levels of force.
It also seems politically performative since the current administration is focusing efforts in Chicago, Minnesota, Maine, etc, not Texas or Florida where there are far more undocumented immigrants.
There were protests against the Obama deportation campaign but they were far smaller because the campaign itself stayed within bounds that fit most people’s notions of lawfulness and propriety. They also did not make the huge mistake of deciding in advance to all-out defend every single bad decision by every law enforcement agent. That alone is a huge factor in the pushback that officials are getting, even from GOP and 2A leaders.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with flying a Mexican flag - if you are trying to create a lighting rod to attract all the anti-immigrant vitriol. It's the same kind of dumb as "defund the police" - actively harmful.
And I strongly suspect that if I flew a Russian flag in the very liberal and tolerant Bay Area my house might just accidentally catch fire. Despite my right to do so.
[flagged]
Have a margarita and some tacos!
[dead]
Okay let's say it is murder (regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges)
What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Protesting? Civil disobedience? Thought you had freedoms. Freedom means being met with an appropriate legal reaction in case your acts are illegal, not death.
I struggle to understand how you feel that in a free society people can't react to perceived injustices, and act in protest of it. A free society doesn't force everyone to bow down to the powers that be for fear of injury or death.
Empathy, that is what you appear to be missing in your equation. If I see someone about to chuck a baby off a cliff, I hope I step out of my normal comfort zone and do something. In that case it is probably pretty clear, and this one seems grey for some people, but for others, and myself include, ICE is affecting people's lives in ways that is unacceptable and we need to do something.
[flagged]
Streeeeeeeetch, but good on you, keep up whatever it is you are attempting.
(to the sibling, too) What did you see happen then? Here: https://youtu.be/NCfv1cWtpvg?t=66
Masked people rushing a car and drawing weapons and the driver panicking. Now ask me who appears to escalate the entire situation. Or what the actual penalty for impeding a lane of traffic is.
From what I've read, there was some kind of community watch and/or protest going on for ICE there, patrol cars, etc. But you're saying she had the suspicion that a few masked thugs had accidentally gotten lost within the police operation?
We are too far past the fascist crap too entertain this stupidity. I get it, you don't see a problem with any of it. Now go enjoy your dumb little life and I am going to go back trying to find ways to help make friends and family I have in the Minneapolis area feel safe again.
Everything is more nuanced than your all-or-nothing any of it designation.
You say that there was no getaway performed and the person trying to drive away wasn't aware that it was law enforcement that had ordered her to stay. Sure, she didn't deserve to die. But if you charge towards an officer, or reasonably appear to do so, then these things happen. Why didn't she peacefully stay put instead?
Propaganda.
The actual videos do not support this conclusion at all. You’re being lied to.
I've seen the actual videos. While tragic, then she was trying to drive away, not obeying the approaching officer's orders. At that moment, the officer towards she was driving was the one that shot her.
It also seemed that right before the event she was doing some kind of traffic regulation there which is why the officers approached her.
Do you think the shots through the driver window, after the agent was 100% out of the way of the vehicle, were justified?
From the medical examiner we know it was one of these two shots that killed her. We know they did not come in through the front windshield when the agent was at the front quarter panel. We see them clearly occur on video while the officer is definitively out of the path of the vehicle.
It also is quite clear from the results that shooting her did not make the situation safer after he was clear, either - it directly causes the car to accelerate while not under the control of a living human being.
Personally, I would still argue about even the first shot - but I have yet to be able to find any common ground in discussions with people that defend the 2nd and 3rd shot.
You can't start at the point the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her. That's equivalent to equating legality with morality, which doesn't work when talking about what ought to be. Rather you have to examine the entire situation, which was an extreme escalation by ICE in response to what was essentially protesting.
There was no pretext to execute her. It's when she started driving (even spun the wheels I think) towards the officer were shots fired. In your mind, does police getaway equate with protesting now?
In your mind, does getting away from the police equate to getting shot? In the head? Three times?
Even police chiefs have called out how incompetent that agent was.
As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her.
And as I said, there was no pretext to execute her. (Or you need to explain what the word "pretext" means to you, and perhaps also "execute".)
The pretext is deliberately standing in a position such that if the car moves he can claim to be acting in "self defense". This was directly contrary to ICE's own procedures about how to approach vehicles. This particular agent had even previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles, so it's a reasonable assumption that this positioning was fully deliberate - the agent set the situation up so that he'd have an excuse to kill the next driver who didn't respect his authorituh.
If you look at the video, then the woman turns the front of the car towards the agent, who comes from the other side. Do you mean that he knew the movement that was going to happen and risked his life to do that.
Would you say the woman was in her right to attempt a getaway?
"As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her."
Sitting in front of a screen and Monday-morning-quarterbacking, it's easy to say that driving off was wrong. But nobody really knows what they themselves would do in a fight or flight situation when being assaulted by a group of masked men, especially when one of the group is aggressive enough that they are indeed going to end up killing you.
The point is these "public servants" should not be escalating to create such high-stakes situations in the first place, especially with regards to citizens who are protesting. There is zero excuse for it, and under any halfway-sane administration such an event would be, at the very least, a moment of investigation and reflection.
If you're afraid of ICE agents, what are you doing in the area anyway?
Wut? You do realize that being in the presence of law enforcement officers is much different than the situation of being actively assaulted by them, right?
For example, the other day I interacted with a few police officers in person by virtue of being tangentially-involved with a car crash. I laughed and joked with them, then went about my business. But if they had instead been surrounding me with guns drawn, it would have taken me the rest of the day to come down from that.
When driving towards a law enforcement officer, it is you assaulting them, not the other way around. Fleeing is against the law as well. Why did the woman attempt this? Ot, if it was so dangerous, what was she doing there?
"As I said, you're starting at a point where the ICE agent had already set up his pretext to execute her."
You keep coming back to this point in time, to the exclusion of everything that led up to it. Why?
Because the alledged pretext assumes being able to predict the future.
Are you claiming it is impossible for an ICE agent to think "I'm just going to shoot the next person who tries to drive away" or what?
Planning ahead to put your own health at risk?
You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?
Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.
I understand what they mean.
Taliban, the people at the top are acting in a calculated and rational manner. That is why the US overthrew the Taliban to be replaced by the Taliban. They're not morons, and they are not impulsive at least at a high level. They are cold and calculated and know how to use calculated violence and appeal to the populace. You may dislike this is the case but with Taliban I feel this is indisputable, despite numerous tactical blunders on their end.
Pretti looked more like a raging lunatic. He knew CBP/ICE were homicidal maniacs and the slightest thing will set them off. He knew that acting like that will be interpreted by them as a 'shot at the King.' His actions looked impulsive and ultimately threw his life away getting very little for what he traded. And he basically submitted his head for execution after letting himself be disarmed, and I'm left wondering -- what was the point?
No one wants to be like the guy swinging at tail lights and spitting like a toddler with a cosmetic accessory gun tucked in their waistband which they then surrendered and offered their head for execution -- and for what?
Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The point is that you fight against injustice even in the face of state violence. Every movement that is a threat to existing power structures faces violence. Take a look at the labor movement in the US, the civil rights movement in the US, the anti-war movement in the US.
> Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The new movement is decentralized and doesn't rely on figureheads.
Also, you should read the news today if you think Pretti's death was in vain: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=general%20strike&tbm=n...
You've offered a lot of criticism - what do you think the solution is?
> park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
> run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
Do you seriously believe pulling a gun and killing somebody is an appropriate response to such actions?
Because if you do, that is a dangerously authoritan attitude.
Why would they find it inappropriate? It's fun for them and they're guaranteed to get away with it. All the opposition does is vote harder and ask nicely that the state not do it again.
Worst case, someone sues and it's paid by OPM. But having been the subject of brutality by CBP, I can tell you it's almost impossible to find a lawyer (all the ones I talked to had already tried and lost so many times they wouldn't take a case, though maybe you have better luck now since immigration law is in vogue) and if you do your chances of overcoming supremacy clause and immunities are next to nill. (Lady in a more egregious case but otherwise similar facts to mine, was raped via hand because the argument was there was drugs up there -- she lost even though there weren't any).
The reason why Trump chose ICE/CBP as his gestapo is precisely because they have excellent overlap of both being largely carved out from constitutional protections via both precedent and their situation as an executive nominally border facing police and the fact they answer to POTUS and can function as an army without running afoul of posse comitatus. Trump simply called checkmate on the populace by taking advantage of 100+ years of precedent, law, and jurisprudence that perfectly teed up the opportunity.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Maybe an order by another agent to drive off? But also, it's not hard to see why you can't understand it - because none of the questions are based in reality, all the descriptions are false/twisted, it's like "I don't understand why the fans of that team that lost celebrate the win" when in reality the team won, that's why, easy to understand
>regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges
Disagreement from a class that refuses to disagree with their leader and no charges from the administration that committed the crime.
>What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Presumably they thought the problem was that they were in the way, for which driving off would resolve.
>What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
The purpose of sending ICE there was to intimidate people, and dear leader was quite open about that. So we might rephrase the question as "why does a deliberate intimidation attempt lead people to feel intimidated?"
>It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
Really? So then think of politics like sport, with the dems and repubs being two teams, and ICE being like fans from one team, and protesters are fans of the other, and they go out in the street to support their side. Now imagine that instead of your team losing being completely inconsequential, it could lead to you being poorer, your rights being taken away, etc. Now you understand politics, congratulations.
America started with the Boston Tea Party. If you don't like our allergy to authority that considers itself above us and our God given rights, you are free to leave.
>no charges
This seems a bit disingenuous
I predict that no matter what people say here you will still struggle to understand.
where were the murders of civilians lawfully protesting?
This is very clearly a loaded question and not a good faith one. You are using the format of a question to express a rhetorical position. You can't just tack on "this is an honest question".
Your premise is incorrect. ICE's conduct is illegal, they are executing people in the streets and deporting US citizens. This is against the law. The majority of US citizens did not vote for Trumpin in 2024, and federal elections do not explicitly involve a vote on policy.
Further, people who are 30 now were 15 in 2010.
How often did ICE violate the 4th Amendment under Obama? How many court orders did they ignore? How many people were deported without due process?
Obama actually pioneered non-judicial deportations. Under his administration, 75% of removals took place without the established immigration hearing process.
Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings, that is, a final order of removal being issued by an immigration "judge." This is generally ignored by news reporting.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairn...
The news does not contextualize what is going on. Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism. But it's not only a problem with this story, but most stories. Selective outrage is applied based on the cause and enemy du jour. You are honestly better off not watching the news unless you are willing to do extensive deep dives on a topic, because regardless of your party affiliation or personal feelings or what outlet you subscribe to you are being fed a line of propagandistic BS.
> Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism
"Border patrol murders unarmed subdued citizen in broad daylight on film and then lies about it" I think is pretty unprecedented. at least as far as I know.
> Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings
CITATION NEEDED.
There’s more than a thousand fatal US police shootings every year with various levels of justification, many impacting people totally innocent of anything, even if we accept your propagandized mischaracterization of what happened. (I don’t blame you for this. It’s being pushed hard, and the other sides propaganda is no more truthful.)
Aside from regular shootings, Obama (perhaps not so famously) killed a 16 year old US citizen overseas in a country we were not at war with, then refused to explain why. Off the record, officials said he should have had a better father (who had been killed in an earlier drone strike.) Somehow, everyone failed to turn out for this and similar abuses of power.
There’s nothing new or unusual about this.
> CITATION NEEDED.
I already provided you a citation showing that 75% of deportations in a prior administration happens without any due process, showing that even if this statement wasn’t true (obviously the weaker version is) then it’s not at all unprecedented. Yet all the rage is in the here and now.
It’s also worth noting that, as I alluded to, immigration court is administrative anyway, not judicial. “Immigration judges” are just DoJ employee, not judges.
The most concerning thing about this is how many people have been radicalized into believing committing felonies by interfering with, harassing, and assaulting LEO is not only legal but safe. Even blocking them is a crime. At this point we’re at a situation where millions of people believe the laws we passed as a representative democracy are so illegitimate violence - not just peaceful protest - is justified against the state. This is a really bad sign and it’s getting people killed.
> There’s more than a thousand fatal US police shootings every year with various levels of justification, many impacting people totally innocent of anything, even if we accept your propagandized mischaracterization of what happened. (I don’t blame you for this. It’s being pushed hard, and the other sides propaganda is no more truthful.)
What usually happens when a municipal, county, or state law enforcement officer (and until recently, federal) kills someone in the line of duty?
Most of the time there’s a brief internal investigation and then nothing happens to them, because they’re given enormous latitude and discretion, even when the victim was totally innocent. If you want a very notorious and similarly politicized example, look at what happened to the federal agent that killed Vicki Weaver: the feds refused to do anything to them, and the local case was initially shut down due to sovereign immunity for federal agents and then later abandoned.
If you want a more recent famous case, consider the shooting of Craig Robertson: the FBI says he was armed and shot him dead, agents cleared after an internal investigation and we’ll never know if he was armed or not (I’d guess yes.) That’s it.
almost no one is getting due process today
and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
You seem to conveniently ignore the 4th amendment violations and the ignored court orders.
Obama had “fast-track” deportations but also convenient ignore that this administration is doing it under the aliens enemies act which is a wartime authorization and most importantly deporting people to “third” countries.
What fourth amendment violations do you think are unprecedented?
The Alien Enemies Act is one of our oldest laws and was passed by John Adams during peacetime to suppress perceived foreign influence from migrants.
Deportations to third countries are pretty clearly the only solution to cases where immigrants have a final order of removal that has been suspended due to problems in their home country, or where their home country refuses to accept them; the alternative of leaving them in a perpetual limbo is absurd. What else would you do?
ICE directives that allow for entering a home without a judicial warrant.
The FBI in particular is notorious for warrantless raids and break-ins, a practice that has seemingly subsided more because of the modern ease of electronic surveillance than because of the bad publicity and court actions.
I personally think that mass deportation is a foolish policy. I also accept that it can be done legally. However, the current actions clearly exceed legal boundaries.
1. ICE claims the power to enter homes with out a warrant. And has done so: https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2026/01/judge-orders-release-....
2. ICE / DHS are shooting protesters. This is not a legal response to a protest.
3. ICE is ignoring court orders at an unbelievable rate: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...
4. The administration is openly slandering citizens - claiming they are terrorists without evidence.
5. ICE is conducting mass surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike.
There are certainly liberals who broadly oppose deportation and who would protest any mass deportation project. However, there, I believe, a lot of us who would grudgingly accept as foolish-but-legal a deportation program that followed the law. What is broadly - across all political stripes - despised is this despotic overreach. And that's what driving people into the streets.
I wasn't outraged until ICE kidnapped two US citizens at gunpoint from their jobs at target, refused to verify citizenship, dragged them away in unmarked vans, beat the shit out of them and dumped them in the snow.
Obama deported criminals only and mostly at the border.
AFAIU, ICE is also deporting mostly criminals, no?
A majority of recent detentions are of people without a criminal record.
> According to DHS data, about 29% of those detained by ICE in January had criminal convictions, down from about 54% last February https://www.factcheck.org/2026/01/as-ice-arrests-increased-a...
Note that this percentage doesn't include any pending charges.
You can find stats including pending charges: https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3m... the main uptick in recent arrests is mostly people without any criminal charges including pending.
You can see that a lot of charges aren’t that “criminal” too - it’s traffic violations or immigration itself.
Why should it?
These people just haven't been convicted - yet.
Of course, you might say "not guilty until proven otherwise", which is true. But they are in the US illegally anyway.
Edit 2: Before reading on don't bother, this person isn't American so has no understanding of what the words they are typing mean in the American system, that immigration judges aren't Article III criminal judges, that immigration violations are civil violations not criminal, etc.
Being honest/truthful really doesn't matter to you folks, does it? You made a claim that was bullshit to try and sway people. And are willing to sacrifice the unimportant 'due process' that we have in the USA. You all really believe in nothing, and especially don't believe in America.
Edit: You are trying to confuse/blend 'deporting criminals' to be something other than the American understanding of criminal, and you know it. I'm not wasting further time on your bad faith word spinning. You don't understand/care about the American system, you just want to abuse words to paint a false picture. Sad that we have so many people like you in our country that don't' understand it/believe in it, and would give up the security we tried to build into it at the cost of blood for your personal short term political reasons.
Isn't "due process" for an illegal immigrant already happened in the sense that they are determined to be an illegal?
Trump had deporting illegals in his campaign and got mandate from the people. You don't seem to believe in democracy instead.
Edit: The note about pending charges is just a note. Trump's platform was to deport all illegal immigrants, not only who have been convicted of other crimes as well (they did start with the convicted though). You don't need to waste time, but you need to be able to point to where the bad faith arguments and word spinning are. To me it looks like the democrats are mobilizing those who don't quite understand what losing an election means in a democratic country. If your view is that American system is something else, e.g, "only what the Democratic wants to do should be done", then you would need to push this through your system.
You talk about America yet don't understand our most basic concept of law. "These people just haven't been convicted - yet." is so fucking anti-American it's crazy to see someone just drop it as a rebuttal here.
You added that after your claim: "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals"
You then try to wordsmith criminal into to 'illegal immigrants'. These people are being deported on Civil law violations. Not criminal. If it was criminal ICE wouldn't be able to use immigration courts and their special carvouts for not following the constitution. You don't seem to understand any American basic civics in addition to your not understanding your own statement 'ICE is also deporting mostly criminals'
You're further expanding makes your original statement obvious bad faith spin that wasn't true and that you didn't actually care about.
I have never been registered as a Democrat in my life, and was libertarian for the majority of it. Again you ignorantly make statements you have zero idea are true or not. Democracy isn't 'I won, I get to throw away the system of laws and violate the constitution'.
Edit: Got it, by saying "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals" what you meant was everyone they deport they have determined (in Immigration court and by immigration judges not real Article III judges on civil violations and not in Criminal court under criminal law violations sentenced by real Article III Judges) 'are criminals'. You don't understand American civics. You don't understand the definition of the word 'criminal'. You don't understand Democracy doesn't mean 'free to do whatever you want when elected' mob rule.
Right. The original poster who was saying that only ("only"!) 29% of January deportees have been convicted, that is correct. To this I added that that percentage doesn't account for ongoing charges (also true, right?). No disagreement in the percentage arguments.
The rest of the immigrants are still illegally in the country, no? Wasn't deporting them on the campaign platform that got the mandate? What is "the system" if not this?
If your interpretation of the constitution is that as long as you are "protesting" then you can do anything, be anywhere, including whistle along an ongoing police operation then I can tell you that that interpretation is not correct. If it were, any criminal (not need be immigrant) would say that they were "protesting", while robbing a store or doing any other random actually criminal thing.
Edit: I get what you are saying, too, but the practical solution isn't to keep current illegal immigrants in, as in that case anyone attempting to enter legally should just switch to enter illegally as that is more efficient. (I.e, if there is some country-wide entry rate, then the currently illegally entered have succeeded by jumping the line.)
The above is also the platform that was voted into office not long ago. This does look like democracy to me.
What mandate? Trump did not secure a large enough victory for anyone to reasonably claim he was handed a mandate. Did the Republicans ever respect Biden's "mandate" on his issues, with a similar EV victory and a huge popular vote victory? Hell, Trump didn't even get half the popular vote.
Nor do single issues get mandates even when a president does have an overwhelming victory. Voters do not select specific issues to vote on, they vote for a person based on their overall platform.
Trump also talked about how he was going to focus on deporting violent criminals. And now that that is no longer the case, the goalpost is being moved to... any crimes. And now again to anyone that has outstanding charges, but no conviction. And now it's hey, they're here illegally, so that's a crime, right! We'll have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of those being deported also entered using a legal process that puts them in limbo - ICE has been grabbing people showing up at their immigration court cases.
I'd call it the presidential victory mandate. I guess he shouldn't actually do what he promised as the victory wasn't large enough? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
W̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶d̶d̶y̶.̶ We were founded on the fucking Boston Tea Party. Yeah, we trade off conveniences in policing for freedom of the people. I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶v̶e̶. There are plenty of non-freedom loving countries out there.
I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶r̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶i̶v̶i̶c̶s̶. You seem kind of ignorant to like the basic premise of our nation or how/why we arrived at it.
Edit: My bad for being hard on you. I assumed you were American and we were talking from a common framework of understanding. American democracy was created to prevent mob rule, not enable it. You can run on whatever you want, it doesn't mean that what you run on is allowed under our system of laws, even if popular with the mob. Most of our families were forced to flee to the USA because 'the mob' wanted us dead, or to criminalize our existence, or force us to change religions. WE FUCKING HATE MOB RULE, AND WE FUCKING HATE KINGS WITH UNCHECKED POWER. Immigration law is not criminal law in the USA (it's a loophole to apply lower standards than the Constitution requires). Immigration courts aren't finding someone as being a criminal, they are finding a civil law violation. Immigration judges aren't real judges. Article III Judges are real judges as empowered by the Constitution.
I don't live in the US. Also I edited my parent answer (but no need to edit yours. Continue below at will.)
I maintain that what was voted in the office a year ago was to deport the illegals, not only those who have committed other crimes as well. I might just as well say that you are ignorant of the democratic process instead. And if you think that the US will be a "free entry" country as it was after the discovery of the continent then I guess you live at a part of the country where the newly arrived immigrants aren't disturbing your life yet.
[dead]
No. That is not the case. The majority of deportations are of non-criminals.
Non-convicted persons, not "non-criminals"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Illegal entry is still a crime.
Innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is a criminal until some judge declared them to be.
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
[flagged]