They're doing this over the objection of state and local authorities, and despite the fact that their actions have been repeatedly ruled illegal by the courts.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
Okay, but dragging citizens out of their homes without a warrant (https://www.commondreams.org/news/ice-raid-chicago-apartment) sure is.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
More relevant to ICE, is the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from doing that.
Deportation is not a punishment and is entirely avoidable in 99% of cases: don't overstay or enter illegally.
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
Oops a citizen, don’t look so brown next time. Catch and release.
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
To the parent poster's point, the obligation of the citizen in a democracy (at least in theory) is to try to align those.
In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.
> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law
I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].
That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.
A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
Without probable cause? The Fourth Amendment.
> shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence
I see that you are comfortable with a presumption of guilt so long as the burden of proof of actual innocence isn’t too rigorous, but that’s exactly backwards.
It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
People are reduced to the point of keeping airtags on them so loved ones and their lawyers can find them because the administration wants to hide them away.
What does the fact that ICE is doing it to catch illegal matter? Because as far as I'm concerned ICE has no bearing on this. It's wrong no matter who does it or what their goals are.
Being an illegal is barely a crime. Whoops, you overstayed your visa, big fucking deal. If we are going to take issue with this sort of enforcement behavior used on such minor infractions then we need to do so on principal, because not giving a shit when it was used on drug dealers and terrorists and tax evaders and everything else that's "bad" is how we fucking got here.
That's not happening
> Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
Illegal immigrants are deported as quickly as the law allows in every country all around the world. Sometimes they are turned around at the airport before ever entering. Should we give all of them court dates and set them loose in the country?
Really don't understand the hyper-emotional hyperbole around this topic. Seems very astroturfed. If its not, a lot of people have lost their ability to be rational as they discuss complex issues.
If you can’t understand the emotion of being sent to a random country and being separated from your family, I can’t help you.
1. Doing mass detentions and checking papers. Of course not literally through the entirety of a city, but do you agree this happens in mass at say home depot parking lots, construction sites etc, where ICE doesn't know who exactly is here illegally, so they detain everyone and check. This vs having a specific individual in mind and going to arrest that person.
2. Sending people to countries they have no ties to. CECOT for instance, where they're imprisoned indefinitely without a specific charge.
Do you agree these have happened? If so do you think they're ok?
Yes it is [1].
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
To rudely open a dictionary:
"As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases.
Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES.
The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.
The rhetorical trick of my reply being that it forces you to either address to the meat of the subject, or leave the statement uncontested.
But congratulations, conceding the argument rather than ousting yourself as a fascist was the better choice.
"I think they're being employed in a shitty and potentially illegal manner outside their remit" is a perfectly arguable take that doesn't require tinfoil-hattery.
ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law.
California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
You can't ignore federal laws or declare "safe-zones" from it. Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats...again.
Preëmption is about conflicts of laws [1]. You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preëmpt California law.
> Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats
I live in a red state. We started to see ICE enforcement and then our Senators told them to fuck off.
To the extent we have a safe zone from immigration enforcement, it's in Republican economic strongholds [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids...
Legally, it's up for debate on how much power localities can regulate Federal Law Enforcement operations. Federal Government takes the view that it's restrictions on operations by states is almost zero. There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling.
States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
What? States have been fighting over this since the 19th century [1].
> States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
Source for states being "loath to attempt to regulate federal law enforcment"?
We literally have multiple states--led by California--passing laws which "attempt to regulate" just that. (Exhibit A: the comment you responded to.)
[1] https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/2025/explainer-...
If you look at recent legal history, Federal Government has won in every case where Federal Law Enforcement was acting as Federal Law Enforcement Officers.
My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
Not disputing, but do you have sources?
> My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
This is fair. I think one of the smartest things a Democrat Governor could do right now is start arresting federal agents who are breaking state laws, e.g. around where they can be and how they must identify themselves.
As you say, it will probably be met sceptically by the courts, and almost certainly so by SCOTUS. But it will gum up the works and turn that person into a hero. If Trump fucks up and arrests them, their political ascendancy is assured.
>Decades later, in 1992, another high-profile prosecution of a federal official involved the siege of anti-government separatist Randall Weaver’s cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho.[33] Amid a controversial series of events, an FBI sniper accidentally killed Weaver’s unarmed wife, Vicki Weaver.[34] The U.S. Attorney General decided not to prosecute the sniper under federal law, but Idaho prosecutors charged him with involuntary manslaughter under state law.[35] After some uncertainty in prior court decisions, a split federal appeals court concluded that the Idaho case could tentatively go ahead because disputed facts left it unclear whether the sniper “acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out [his] duties.”[36] A week after that decision, however, the newly elected county prosecutor in Idaho chose to drop the charges.[37]
And in a case from 2006, Wyoming prosecutors charged federal wildlife officers with trespass and littering for entering private land while collaring wolves as part of a federal monitoring program.[38] The Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers were immune from prosecution because they had an “objectively reasonable and well-founded” belief that they were on public land when conducting the collaring.[39] The court also concluded that the prosecution “was not a bona fide effort to punish a violation of Wyoming trespass law, which requires knowledge on the part of a trespasser, but rather an attempt to hinder a locally unpopular federal program.”[40]
Other recent high-profile cases include a Virginia prosecution of U.S. Park Police officers who shot and killed a man in 2017,[41] a Boston municipal court judge finding a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in contempt of court and referring the matter to the district attorney for prosecution after the agent detained a man in the middle of a municipal court trial,[42] and an Oregon prosecution of a Drug Enforcement Administration officer who hit and killed a cyclist in 2023 while pursuing a suspected fentanyl trafficker.[43] The first two cases were dismissed,[44] and the Oregon case is still pending in a federal appeals court.[45]
Not all of Federal law supersedes state law. The Tenth Amendment clarifies:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If it's not given to the federal government to regulate, the federal government can't regulate it.
Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration.
Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racists.
If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t. All while blowing the military budget of Saudi Arabia [1][2] to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much.
[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-d...
[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...
It was much easier for Obama to do it because there were not throngs of protesters trying to stop his ICE officers from doing their job.
Yes there were [1][2]. New York City Council members were arrested [3].
Obama's ICE was simply more focussed on detaining and deterring illegal immigrants because immigration was a political liability for him. For Trump, efficiacy isn't as important as messaging.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/barack-obama-immigration-raids-pro...
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3793700
[3] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/protest-arrests/211895...
Part of that is saying "immigration is good, actually", instead of conceding political positions to the right as they poison our politics.
The Dems should have created a counter-narrative. If you believe in liberal, multi-ethnic democracy, then you must say so. The lesson (that I suppose people have forgotten from history) is that our freedoms (as I am talking about it) must be defended, always, and not taken for granted.
The Republicans abandoned the economic debate, and shifted focus to social issues. This is what caught the Democrats, including myself, off guard. Rather than stealing our jobs, the immigrants were accused of stealing our cats.
Framing it as an economic issue in hindsight seems like a polite way of "steelmanning" the voting base, but I'm not sure it's really justifiable.
Trump's win wasn't even close to being a mandate. Also, people (now) hate his enforcement policies.
> illegal immigrants dilute the labour force
ICE is not simply going after illegal immigrants for one thing. Also, immigrants support the economy. They do jobs Americans won't for one thing. But I'd love to see data on the amount of labor force dilution immigrants are doing. We should really one looking at the ownership class sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth and not sharing.
> perceived injustice
Exactly. We should have solidarity, not be pulling up the drawbridge behind us. But the current arrangement suits Capital just fine.
> If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t.
Agree. They're doing fascism.
Then why are the farmers complaining about it? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-farm-groups-want-trump-s...
“From January to June, the average number of detainees per day in ICE custody rose 43 percent, to more than 57,000. But since July, when the [OBBA] funding was approved, the detainee population has increased only about 5 percent, to roughly 60,000, the latest statistics show.
The stream of social-media clips showing masked federal agents kicking down doors, raiding Home Depot parking lots, and pulling people from their car have kept up the appearance of an ever-expanding campaign. ICE’s own data show that the agency’s buildup stalled over the summer” [1].
Meanwhile, with first-year deportations around 400,000 [2], they stand to match what Obama did in 2012 [3], despite spending $40 to 70bn, or 10 to 15x, more [4][5].
Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, ICE is involved in domestic policing, partisan intimidation and the illegal detention of American citizens.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-imm...
[2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
[3] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG...
[4] https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 $5.8bn, FY2012, $8.2bn CPI adjusted to ‘25
[5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b... $45 to 75 billion under OBBBA
Easy to inflate deportations when you catch the same fish and the river is flowing.
Much slower when you dam off the river and have to dig the remaining catfish out of the mud.
“U.S. Border Patrol agents recorded nearly 238,000 apprehensions of migrants crossing the southern border illegally in fiscal year 2025” [1]. For 2012 to 2015, the chart shows about 360k, 420k, 480k and 330k, respectively.
So ICE is spending $330 to 580 thousand dollars per additional Southwest border encounter in 2025 versus 2012. ($250 to 440 thousand if we average Obama’s second-term numbers.)
These numbers 10x even San Francisco’s circa 2016 homeless-industrial profligacy [2]. Unless ICE is a ball of wormy corruption, they’re clearly not focused on immigration enforcement.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-cr...
[2] https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
Crossings are lower overall due to securing of the border.
If it is, it's being pursued corruptly and incompetently.
From the top of the thread, ICE is spending boatloads more money to deport just about as many people as Obama did with a tenth of the budget [1]. Cross-border encounters are within 100,000, so the difference is not explained by recividism.
ICE ran a 5AM motorcade through my mountain town, compete with helicopter escort. We’re in a red state, though, and border a red farm state, so I understand they were actually told to knock it off.
> "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer
The only part of a definition [1] that ICE might fail is in whether they’re professionally designated to act as a secret police. If by wannabe you’re saying ICE intends to be and act like a paramilitary, you’ve effectively conceded the point.
Genuine curiosity, what did the motorcade look like? Gov plates or personal vehicles? Was the helicopter ICE or local police keeping an eye on things?
(I never said what you’re falsely quoting.)
An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force.
TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game.
> Gov plates or personal vehicles?
Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.)
I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries.
The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police.
> local police keeping an eye on things?
Not state or local.
What's the acceptable notation for paraphrasing? I typically use > for quotes.
Agreed, most of this is an unnecessary argument over terminology when I was simply calling them Temu Stasi.
We'll see about the secret police thing, for now they seem to be just about getting their deportation bounties.
No clue :P. But I think quotation marks should be saved for actual quotations, particularly in a threaded context. (Air quotes absolutely muddy the waters.)
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
What's the proportion of US citizens arrested compared to actual illegal immigrants?
If I'm a US citizen and I get swept up in an immigration raid, my lawyer calls my wife who brings my US passport and I'm released. A pain in the ass, but not a violation of my civil rights. Now if I get beat up by ICE, or they file a false claim for resisting, then sure, we've got grounds for a case that my rights were violated. But constitutional rights are not a blanket "I can never be arrested if I think I'm innocent"
They simply got a warrant retroactively after they already did it. Released without charge, but they just invented some paperwork afterwards that an anonymous dog had alerted (judge signed it about 12 hours after I was 'not' arrested). No mention on the PC paperwork who the dog was or who the handler was, as far as I know they didn't exist.
So yeah that's nice in theory but in practice they can simply jail you without recording an arrest, then retroactively invent PC. When I ran a federal background check it came up with no arrests, despite the fact I was imprisoned.
The whole point is people are being arrested and deported without probable cause, or based on their race, and deported without real due process.
There is no chance for these people to call their lawyer or wife, in fact ICE can't even tell you where some of these people are being detained.
Understand what is happening here.
Stingrays are somewhat it common practice. But they force every device to attach to look for the one they want. And its reasonable to feel queasy about that for any number of reasons.
IMSI catchers/stingrays have been common practice in local law enforcement for decades, haven't they? How is this different?
> Some cell-site simulators can also intercept regular calls, text messages, and internet traffic.
In what decade was this true, other than text messages? I don't think it is very easy even for an IMSI catcher/stingray to eavesdrop on calls over LTE, for example.