> Nonviolent crowd control does not seem to be a core competence of these federal forces.

Why is crowd control even needed?

ICE existed for many, many years before now, and them doing their job never caused crowds previously (under both R and D administrations), so what (rhetorically) changed?

Oh this is easy: a gigantic funding increase is being used to massively expand workforce with minimal training, then that workforce is being deployed with an ambiguous mission and apparent arrest quotas, while also being told they’re immune from any criminal liability for their actions (they’re not), including internal memos telling them they’re allowed to enter private homes without judicial warrants (they’re not), and a SCOTUS decision that is being represented to mean that racial profiling is legal now (it's not)

Deploying literal hordes of poorly trained, well-armed men onto American streets with explicit guidance that runs directly contrary to the US Constitution's plain text can, will, and SHOULD attract crowds in opposition.

Hope that helps!

It's completely intentional choice by the Miller/Noem wing of the admin to create media drama and "own the libs", overriding the Homan wing which was pushing for easy wins rounding up known criminal offenders in custody / in red states / etc.

Didn't ICE and predecessor organizations do workplace raids? Maybe that's not as big of a crowd, but it's still a crowd. I think they would tend to do workplace raids in concert with the FBI.

There's a big difference between seeing an immigration raid where you know whoever gets picked up is going to have access to a lawyer, be subject to proper due process, and at worst be sent back to their home country. We knew - or at least believed - that if they detained someone who was a citizen, that person would be released.

Now, when we see ICE grabbing someone, we know that person probably won't have access to legal representation even if they are here legally, even if they're a citizen. We know they might be sent to a concentration camp in a foreign country they aren't from, and we know they might even get murdered in the street. It's a very different dynamic.

None of this is true if you just comply. I have zero fear of any of this happening to me. And I'll celebrate with my lawyer if it does.

There are tens of millions of people in the country illegally. They must go. The one time the government actually does its job and we have lunatics putting their lives on the line to interfere!? I don't understand it. Just let them get the job done.

Exactly. Comply with the armed men and you won't die. Compliance is required for a healthy society. Just comply and you won't be hurt. Compliance is required for a functioning society. Comply and purge society of undesirables. Even if your rights are violated, comply or you will be hurt. Remember America's slogans: land of the free, home of the brave if you comply with the masked mens' orders. Remember the hacker ethos: compliance with the government is required for your safety. Otherwise, you are engaging in domestic terrorism and will be dealt with swiftly by anonymous agents of the state.

Yes.

If someone was robbing a bank, and a lunatic started interfering with law enforcement attempting to apprehend the suspect, wouldn't you expect the lunatic to be dealt with? What do you want to happen?

There are tens of millions of foreigners in the country illegally. They are actively committing a crime against the citizens of the US. I expect law enforcement to apprehend and remove them (it's nice that this is finally starting to happen!) and I expect any lunatics abetting the criminals to be reasonably dealt with.

You're sympathizing with the wrong people. You're championing criminals. You're advocating evil.

You might have more sway if the government's actions were immoral - if the lunatics were "the good guys" - but it's the first time in a while they're actually doing something right. Get out of their way.

The only lunatics in this scenario are the ones executing people in the street and dragging children out of their homes and into concentration camps as well as the people who think that's all reasonable. It's entirely reasonable, and right, to resist them.

"They are actively committing a crime against the citizens of the US." What crime? You are confused if you think being an undocumented immigrant is a crime in it of itself. It's not, despite the right's attempts to paint them as "illegal." And, even if it were a crime, that doesn't suddenly make it "evil" or something that victimizes the "citizens of the US." The law is not the arbiter of good and evil, and very often it's on the side of evil. Miscegenation was a crime. Sodomy was a crime. Those acts were no more evil then than they are now.

You are siding with foreigners over the safety and prosperity of your own people. You are a xenophile. I fully support the government representing my interests by using justified violence against you and other traitors who work to harm my family and my people.

So next time when they arrest you, thinking you’re an illegals immigrant, put you in jail for 2-4 weeks, without access to a lawyer or even a phone call, and then release, will you be stretching your neck to make it more comfortable for them to tread on it?

lol, "your people." I've seen enough of you guys in real life to know what lies behind the bold Nazi larp online. Meek, resentful, small men. You may piss your pants at the sight of a non-white person, but 99% of people don't. Nothing you hope for or think is going to happen will happen. The world you yearn for never existed and never will. Much like every other fascist movement in history, the current one will only be remembered as a pathetic failure.

Truly ridiculous. I briefly wondered if you actually believe this rhetoric, but then I saw your three-day-old account.

Not going to debate with someone who doesn't have the courage to stand behind their convictions. Your account is a throwaway and only exists to launder white supremacist talking points. Best of luck with your new American government, we all know it ended well for the leaders of Italy and Germany.

This is my only account. I make a new one every few days. I'm not hiding anything but sane voices are quickly shadow banned here.

Thankyou for that. Indeed, we have a job to finish! Heil H.

Ernesto Miranda was a criminal. Nevertheless, we have Miranda rights.

If you aren't afraid you must be white. ICE has been arresting citizens because they fit racial profiles: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-us-citizen-...

"There are tens of millions of people in the country illegally. They must go."

Why?

Huh? We have no reason to believe e.g. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was non-compliant in any way with anything, and he was sent to a foreign torture prison without access to a lawyer, without being charged with a crime, without being afforded basic rights that everyone (citizen or not) has under the US Constitution.

We have numerous examples of people who have followed all legal procedures and have legal status in the US who were likewise denied basic Constitutional protections.

Here are a few relevant sources:

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2025-04/FIRE%20Ozt...

https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salva...

> And I'll celebrate with my lawyer if it does.

LOL. Why do you assume you'll get a hearing?

As Timothy Snyder (an historian of Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust) observed last year:

> If you accept that non-citizens have no right to due process, you are accepting that citizens have no right to due process. All the government has to do is claim that you are not a citizen; without due process you have no chance to prove the contrary.

* https://xcancel.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/190429656556234343...

It's truly unbelievable how many allegedly intelligent people fail to grasp this basic corollary of their beliefs.

"Well I'll get due process because I just need to say I'm a citizen!"

Bro... to whom do you say that? When? In what forum? That is literally the entire point of contention!

>Timothy Snyder (an historian of Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust)

lmao

The source of this particular quote is irrelevant, how about you engage with the simple logical structure being put in front of you?

Because ICE has gone way beyond arresting illegals. In Boston, for example, they stopped a naturalization ceremony literally minutes before people were to become citizens. Do you support that?

https://www.wcvb.com/article/21-citizenship-oaths-canceled-f...

Bigotry, mostly. It's usually bigotry.

Well they didn’t wear masks and grab people off the street and shoved them into unmarked vans under previous administrations.

Previous administrations were the ones who opened the borders to allow millions of people to come in illegally. They are the ones who created the problem that this administration is working to solve.

Is it really a problem though?

It seems to be, given how many people voted for "mass deportations".

It also makes it easier for employers to get away with poor working conditions for those workers.

Nope. While there was a large increase in immigrant inflows, there is no evidence their enforcement decisions were significantly different than e.g. Trump 1.

What the statistics actually show is that the United States was a far more attractive destination for immigrants under Biden, but that enforcement policies were largely the same. That makes sense since enforcement policy is mostly set by Congress and not by POTUS.

The increased appeal of the US is entirely explained by the fact that the US economy was excelling far beyond any country in the world, and especially any country in the western hemisphere. At the same time, Central and South America were getting hit by successive political and economic shocks amplified by COVID.

The significant reduction in immigrants towards the tail end of Biden is not because they suddenly decided to "follow the law" and "close the border." It's that they decided NOT to follow the law anymore and to unilaterally ignore the asylum laws that Congress actually sets.

This was later struck down in court: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/district-court-strikes-d...

So really what you're seeing is the difference between the US being a desirable place to come to versus an undesirable one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's moral hazard involved in making the US appear to be highly desirable to people who we don't want to accept, but I'm not sympathetic at all to the view that that means the executive can simply ignore whatever laws they want, or they can turn the US into such a dystopian hellhole that only the most desperate immigrants around would bother attempting entry.

Some additional sources:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-re...

https://www.cato.org/blog/data-show-trump-wouldve-released-m...

They were co-opted to function as Trump's death squads to kill dissidents

I think it changed when I saw they were sending people to (apparently rape/torture) prisons in El Salvador with no due process.

Exactly. There should be no crowd control, because they shouldn't be interacting with the American public except as fellow citizens. If someone commits a crime against them, they can turn the details over to the local police for enforcement of assault, etc.

At this point after how they've been operating, they shouldn't even be allowed to carry weapons. No guns, no grenades, no pepper spray, no masks to escape accountability. These are supposed to be public servants, they should be accountable to the public. If someone they're trying to apprehend reacts violently then they can escalate the situation to the local police or maybe the FBI after the federal agencies do the work of regaining the public trust.

Before now, ICE was primarily paperwork police. Border patrol and occasional visits to round up undocumented immigrants at factories still existed, but the vast majority of their job was related to like customs and visa forms. It's like hiring 10x the postal workers and giving them guns and "qualified immunity" -- you're going to get some new problems.

Who? They are complaining that sanctuary cities' local police are not cooperating. Who else are you suggesting has the necessary expertise?

Well, if local police is not cooperating then it's as designed by the constitution (states have the authority to police), to not give federal government powers to make the country a police state. Feature, not a bug. Federals should discuss and persuade the state and their police.

Nobody said the police are not policing. They have their own jobs and not there to do the bidding of the federal government. You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. These are not dangerous criminals that require a timely response before causing more harm. These are people trying to live their lives and it will not harm the rest of the citizens by doing immigration enforcement at a slower pace.

Did you not notice chasil and deepsun were different accounts?

What does that have to do with my response to the comment I replied?

Your reply to deepsun made no sense as reply to deepsun. You said You're saying this like the local authorities are meant to drop what they are doing at the drop of dime because the feds have a request. But deepsun said the opposite almost.

Perhaps if they cannot carry out their goals without hurting people, the answer is "take a step back" and not "hurt people."

This is beyond naive at this point. The objective is to hurt people. Republican voters have repeatedly explicitly asked for it. There's a reason they flocked to Trump. Cruelty is the point. It's astounding the number of people still so credulous wrt what is happening in this country. You have "Christian" preachers talking about empathy being a sin for fucks sake. Like how can people maintain this sort of ignorance into 2026?

And I don't mean this towards you necessarily. I get some people are still entertaining folks who will never participate in a conversation in good faith because it might influence ignorant observers who stumble across the conversation. But does that ever actually play out? How much time is wasted on people of obvious bad faith? How much time has been wasted on the Shapiros, the Kirks, the Tuckers of the world? The random HN commenter who drops obvious bullshit before disappearing to never be heard from again? You cannot out earnest people flooding the zone with bullshit.

MN police are delivering criminals with no citizenship status to ICE / DHS though.

They have not been supporting ICE on warrentless invasions, fishing expeditions, assaulting local citizens.

Surely, you're not saying that the feds are saying things that are counter to what's actually happening on the ground, are you? /s

At this point, you just have to assume the truth is exactly the opposite of what the feds are saying. How do you know a fed is lying...their mouth is moving.

Minnesota had to waste taxpayer dollars and setup a website to disprove this BS.

https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/

That's the what the state police is for... the one that Minnesota refused to deploy to help ICE when the Good and Pretti situations happened.

The state police are not for enforcing federal law unless the state wants them to. That's a pretty big part of what makes them STATE police, actually.

The state police are not "for" non-violent enforcement.

I mean yeah, they're not "for" it but you can see how deploying the PD would be helpful as they're more inclined to be non-violent and also I'd reckon they have far more experience than ICE considering the mass requirements which results in many many ICE officers being pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience put into stressful situations.

Why are they more inclined to be non-violent?

Maybe the federal government shouldn't be sending "pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience" into "stressful situations."

Kooky idea, I know.

Maybe the state government should send the state police to arrest the murderers.

Kooky idea, I know.

Why do we expect the state police to help murderers? My only question is why they're not out there protecting the people from the murderers.

There are 600 police in the area, and 3000 ICE agents. In what practical way can the local police support that and continue policing?

In addition, they are cooperating where they can: https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combatting-dhs-misinformation/

It's a feature, not a bug

This is assuming that they want to avoid the violence, whereas it appears that they very much want to engage in the violence.

They want to portray Democratic cities as violent and chaotic. The easiest way to do that is to create violence and chaos.

Did you know that at many peaceful protests, right-wing agitators come in and deliberately burn the American flag, to make it look like the protesters are burning the American flag? These are the tactics they employ.

These ICE operations are all for show, and also for revenge against Trump's enemies. If immigrants and crime were such a problem for these cities, then the residents would be begging ICE to come in rather than protesting. But the cities overwhelming voted against Trump. It's not for the benefit of the cities but rather for the people who don't live in the cities and have no real clue about them, people in rural areas for example who vote for Trump and have crazy beliefs about big cities based only on what they're told by Trump and the right-wing media.

In this case the operation backfired a little, because ICE happened to kill the "wrong" people, individuals who were difficult to smear, but generally the big show works to support the propaganda.