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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Thankyou for that. Indeed, we have a job to finish! Heil H.
Why?
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...
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...
"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!
lmao
https://www.wcvb.com/article/21-citizenship-oaths-canceled-f...
It also makes it easier for employers to get away with poor working conditions for those workers.
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...
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.
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?