Why don't cities and states cooperate with ICE like they did when Obama was deporting illegal alien criminals?
That would be fine if that was all they were doing. Instead, they're going after anyone without legal status. Low hanging fruit. Nannies and landscapers and housekeepers and farm workers and Dreamers.
I'm fine with locking down the border. And booting the actual criminals. But a little compassion and common sense should be used when dealing with those who have been here for years and been nothing but law abiding and productive.
Not sure if I 100% agree with that low hanging fruit comment, but I can see where you're coming from. However, the idea that cities and states don't honor the ICE retainers and let illegal aliens who have committed crimes walk out the door is the kind of BS that gets us to the point where ICE is on the streets looking for people and otherwise innocent people get rounded up with them.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
I would also love your reaction to the immunity in Brownback v King.
Not unique. Looks like an ordinary application of the federal tort claims act..
I would also love your reaction to the immunity in Brownback v King.
Not unique. Looks like an ordinary application of the federal tort claims act..
Given our forefathers distrust, no way do I think they would allow agents of the government to physically seize you without identifying themselves, then as you believe you are being kidnapped and try to flee, they beat you up twice. Again, without ever identifying themselves. Then marked police show and order people to delete their cell footage. All with zero repercussions to any involved, except the victim who had to pay for medical and hire a lawyer for resisting. No way, none, people like TJ would accept that.
Why don't cities and states cooperate with ICE like they did when Obama was deporting illegal alien criminals?
That would be fine if that was all they were doing. Instead, they're going after anyone without legal status. Low hanging fruit. Nannies and landscapers and housekeepers and farm workers and Dreamers.
I'm fine with locking down the border. And booting the actual criminals. But a little compassion and common sense should be used when dealing with those who have been here for years and been nothing but law abiding and productive.
The irony in calling them law abiding though😆
I would also love your reaction to the immunity in Brownback v King.
Not unique. Looks like an ordinary application of the federal tort claims act..
Given our forefathers distrust, no way do I think they would allow agents of the government to physically seize you without identifying themselves, then as you believe you are being kidnapped and try to flee, they beat you up twice. Again, without ever identifying themselves. Then marked police show and order people to delete their cell footage. All with zero repercussions to any involved, except the victim who had to pay for medical and hire a lawyer for resisting. No way, none, people like TJ would accept that.
Nor would they accept the tax structure and overall size of the federal government.
The irony in calling them law abiding though
Did you ever do weed? More than weed? Drink before being 21? Be drunk in public? Decide some income didn't need reported to the IRS?
If yes to any, oh the irony in you finding irony in others being law abiding.
I mistakenly thought the House would pass the Senate’s funding bill which had passed by unanimous consent.
That’s not true. You’re out of date on your info. You cling to dated info, because Trump. You’re just like Senate Democrats.
Republicans put out a bill yesterday that carved out all ICE funding. Trump would’ve signed it.
ICE has already been fully "pre-funded" for another three years. Carving out ICE and funding everything else would amount to a Democratic unconditional surrender. Why does Trump object so much to unmasking ICE agents and requiring judicial warrants?
I don’t like the masks but they are an earnest safety issue. Unlike local PD, State PD or other Feds there’s a large portion of the Democrat party that doesn’t think ICE/ CBP should even exist. That anyone who takes the role is a “goon” worthy of harassment or worse. It doesn’t even matter if they’re well behaved.
ICE has used administrative warrants forever. Requiring judicial warrants would bring deportations to a stand still, which is of course the point.
You’d be dealing with ideological judges, extended process all to deport someone that doesn’t even have 4th amendment protections.
What person inside the United States does not have 4th amendment protections? You believe an administrative warrant to enter a home is lawful? This is a new deal from the summer of 2025 and referenced in DHS memo with no law. 3 cases have held that practice to be unconstitutional. Each citing Justice Scalia "[w]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Prior to 2025, administrative warrants had never been issued for home entry by DHS or its predecessors
The Dems judicial warrant demand isn’t limited to residences. And acting like complete 4th amendment protections apply to those with a final order of removal is far from settled case law.
They’ve already had their due process.
That’s not true. You’re out of date on your info. You cling to dated info, because Trump. You’re just like Senate Democrats.
Republicans put out a bill yesterday that carved out all ICE funding. Trump would’ve signed it.
ICE has already been fully "pre-funded" for another three years. Carving out ICE and funding everything else would amount to a Democratic unconditional surrender. Why does Trump object so much to unmasking ICE agents and requiring judicial warrants?
I don’t like the masks but they are an earnest safety issue. Unlike local PD, State PD or other Feds there’s a large portion of the Democrat party that doesn’t think ICE/ CBP should even exist. That anyone who takes the role is a “goon” worthy of harassment or worse. It doesn’t even matter if they’re well behaved.
ICE has used administrative warrants forever. Requiring judicial warrants would bring deportations to a stand still, which is of course the point.
You’d be dealing with ideological judges, extended process all to deport someone that doesn’t even have 4th amendment protections.
What person inside the United States does not have 4th amendment protections? You believe an administrative warrant to enter a home is lawful? This is a new deal from the summer of 2025 and referenced in DHS memo with no law. 3 cases have held that practice to be unconstitutional. Each citing Justice Scalia "[w]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Prior to 2025, administrative warrants had never been issued for home entry by DHS or its predecessors
The Dems judicial warrant demand isn’t limited to residences. And acting like complete 4th amendment protections apply to those with a final order of removal is far from settled case law.
They’ve already had their due process.
You've changed the premise from:
"ICE has used administrative warrants forever. Requiring judicial warrants would bring deportations to a stand still, which is of course the point.
You’d be dealing with ideological judges, extended process all to deport someone that doesn’t even have 4th amendment protections"
to:
"The Dems judicial warrant demand isn’t limited to residences. And acting like complete 4th amendment protections apply to those with a final order of removal is far from settled case law.
They’ve already had their due process."
Even so, you are still not right. Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, which is why an administrative judge can hear them. Zadvydas v. Davis,533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S.67, 77 (1976) ( “Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” ); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) ( “It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.” )
You then state "acting like complete 4th amendment protections apply to those with a final order of removal is far from settled case law", yet you felt compelled to write that despite what you feel is "settled case law", "[t]hey already had their due process". That isn't right either. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)(holding that an alien had the right to full judicial review of his deportation order and that such review was not limited to habeas corpus proceedings)
Because the discussion above referenced administrative warrants to break into a house, that clearly and correctly assumes that the person is inside the United States, ergo, this little passage applies:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Letting the Executive Branch issue an administrative warrant to permit ICE or whomever to break into a home has never been done in the history of the justice department. Until now. There was a reason why it wasn't done.
If you want to deport illegal aliens, fine by me. But process matters to those who swore an oath to the Constitution. I did 30 years ago. Process should matter to everyone. We have seen the results of what ICE does to just American citizens when the process isn't followed.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
@mark-milton I never referenced administrative warrants to break into a house. Try getting mad at Marv for his motte and bailey argument. Not me.
Everything I’ve said is correct no matter how much shit you want to quote.
@carramrod when did the lack of judicial warrants become a thing? I specifically recall Democrats complaining when administrative warrants were allowed for entering homes. It is that change, and it has been a change, when I heard the vast majority start to complain.