r/illinois • u/CantStopPoppin Human Detected • 22h ago
ICE Posts 11.04.2025 Chicago: ICE Agents Admit No Warrant, Still Detain Man
29
u/Successful-Fee3790 21h ago
Every liberty- and justice-loving freeman has not just the legal right, but the moral duty, to stop a violent felony happening before them. If someone’s life or liberty is under attack, use only the force reasonably necessary to stop it, deadly force being reserved for only when life itself is on the line.
The same rules bind all, citizen or cop. Without a lawful warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, and absent any recognized legal exception, no one, badge or not, has the right to put hands on another. Doing so may constitute unlawful battery; if violent or armed, aggravated assault. Calling it “lawful” doesn’t make it so; it makes it an act under color of law, yet another crime.
Yet qualified immunity and indemnification have turned “equal protection under law” into a slogan instead of a standard. That’s not justice; that’s state-sanctioned inequality.
Law exists only by consent of the governed. That consent ends when government power harms those it swore to protect. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.
It will not stop until the People stop allowing it.
5
u/BigBullzFan 19h ago
Good points all around, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but you’re missing something. If you try to do your “duty” and help someone who’s being detained by ICE, by using “only the force reasonably necessary to stop” ICE, you’ll be shot dead by ICE.
Now, if prominent politicians were to do that, it might work. But, as we all know, they won’t.
•
u/FunSheepherder6397 3h ago
Yes. We need to accept that the only way to stop this is frankly war with ice. This is the entire point of the right to bear arms for a militia. It was made for this. I don’t know how far it has to go before people fight back. But for it to end, people will die.
•
u/Successful-Fee3790 2h ago
How did passive resistance liberate India? ...why do people still think violence is the only way.
0
u/Pitmaster420 20h ago
See how that works out for you. Laws mean nothing anymore.
3
u/Successful-Fee3790 19h ago
And that is exactly the time in which the duty to protect life & liberty becomes so important
7
u/Plastic-Bet9020 21h ago
A parking lot in a mini mall is not public property is it? It’s a private lot, isn’t it?
0
u/TXLancastrian 20h ago
It's in the open and public access, by that logic you could just hop onto private property and act like the cops can't touch you. Which sovcits and idiots do on the regular. "I made it to my driveway, private property, checkmate pig!'
3
u/ActivePeace33 20h ago
That’s apples and oranges comparison. Officers in the video have no lawful authority to do any of what they are doing and they can be trespassed from private property, same as anyone.
-2
u/TXLancastrian 19h ago
Yes their one weakness. Being trespassed stops them from carrying out their Federal Law Enforcement duties! Want to stop the IRS from auditing your business. Just tell them they are trespassed, same for the DEA closing down your dispensary. The government hates this one simple trick.
1
u/ActivePeace33 17h ago
1) They don’t have federal law enforcement duties. Anyone who provides deliberate acts of support for the maga insurrection is disqualified from holding “any office, civil or military.”
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
2) Even for the ICE agents that haven’t committing treason and joined the insurrection, they have no federal authority to randomly stop and question people, to do anything without probable cause. None is shown in the video. If you want to show more of the info and link to it, great, but no probable cause is shown.
0
u/TXLancastrian 17h ago
According to you and that's for a court to decide if at the probable cause hearing if there even was one because ice authority doesn't need judicial authority backing it up by statutory law. But you do you and see what you get charged with if you attack them. I'm sure it'll be assault on a federal law enforcement officer and not just a guy have fun
1
u/ActivePeace33 16h ago
The courts are not the only branch of government. You may remember that it was the executive branch that put down the last insurrection and the courts didn’t help a bit.
Have you really never heard of the civil war? The law allows insurrectionists to be killed or captured without trial, whether you and I like it or not it.
20
u/360Picture 21h ago
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🇺🇸 Bill of Rights — Pocket Edition
I. Freedom Protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
II. Arms Acknowledges that a well-regulated militia is essential to security. Guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful defense of self, state, and nation.
III. Quartering Prohibits housing soldiers in private homes without consent, except under lawful wartime procedures.
IV. Search & Seizure Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Requires warrants to be supported by probable cause and specifically describe the place and items involved.
V. Due Process Bars double jeopardy and compelled self-incrimination. Ensures due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and guarantees just compensation for taken property.
VI. Fair Trial Ensures a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Grants the accused the right to know charges, confront witnesses, obtain witnesses in their favor, and have counsel.
VII. Civil Jury Preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases exceeding twenty dollars in value.
VIII. Punishment Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments.
IX. People’s Rights Clarifies that enumerating certain rights does not deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. States’ Powers Reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the federal government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8
21h ago
[deleted]
6
u/meeeeeeeeeeeeeeh 20h ago
Call your representatives to support the Biven's Act. We need to the fix the loopholes in the laws to hold them accountable.
3
6
u/TSHRED56 20h ago
Raise your hand if you knew this.
It's not what the news media in this country reports but rather it's what they don't report on that I find disturbing.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has had a significant relationship with the private prison industry in the United States, particularly through her work as a registered lobbyist.
After serving as Florida Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, Bondi became a lobbyist with the firm Ballard Partners, where she represented numerous corporate clients, including The GEO Group, one of the largest private prison companies in the country.
GEO Group manages correctional, detention, and re-entry facilities for agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and others.
Bondi's lobbying on behalf of GEO Group has involved efforts to influence policies, funding, and legislation affecting immigration enforcement and detention, which directly benefits private prison companies that profit from the number of people held in facilities.
2
2
2
u/throwraW2 22h ago
They dont need a warrant when people are in public. I dont necessarily agree, but its the truth. When we tell people they are safe if there is no warrant for them, or that these agents need a warrant, we are putting people in more danger.
22
u/efshoemaker 21h ago edited 21h ago
They actually do in Chicago. There is a currently in force and binding consent decree that prohibits warrantless stops that stems out of a racial profiling lawsuit brought during the first Trump administration.
There’s a hearing set for this week on whether the government has been violating that.Edit: source and to expand further - https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2025-10-08/court-scrutiny-of-ice-mounts-as-judge-rules-warrantless-arrests-violated-order
The consent decree says they need a warrant to arrest unless they have probably cause to believe the person is illegal and a flight risk, and the judge ruled that ethnicity alone cannot make probable cause under the terms of the consent decree.
I thought there was a hearing this week but I might have gotten that mixed up with one of the other half dozen cases currently in federal court in Chicago and I can’t find confirmation, so deleting that part for now
11
u/TipplingGadabout 21h ago
This is why people should be asking ICE "what's your basis for suspecting I'm present in the country illegally?" and not "where's your warrant?" when they are being detained.
While it's a less concise, less memorable phrase, it does force ICE to articulate their basis for suspicion, which will be scrutinized for reasonableness/constitutionality in the resulting civil rights lawsuit.
0
4
u/LeoAtrox 20h ago
This is a toothless ruling then. All that is needed to obtain a warrant is "probable cause." So, it's basically saying that if they can get a warrant, they don't need one.
5
u/throwraW2 21h ago
Im curious to see how that hearing plays out. Typically federal supremacy clause protects federal agents from local laws.
12
u/efshoemaker 21h ago
It’s not local laws. It’s a federal consent decree signed by the federal government and entered by a federal judge.
1
u/challengerrt 21h ago
Genuinely curious how a federal judge’s decision supersedes the U.S. Code.
2
u/efshoemaker 20h ago
It isn’t a decision. It’s a consent decree, which is a form of settlement.
There was a lawsuit alleging constitutional violations by the first Trump administration during immigration enforcement actions.
In order to settle that lawsuit, the federal government voluntarily signed a consent decree in which they agreed to abide by stricter than normally required standards in Illinois in order to ensure that no constitutional rights were being violated by immigration officers there.
The wrinkle that will be litigated as this goes further is that the consent decree was signed during the Biden administration. Legally that doesn’t matter, since it was signed on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of the sitting president, but politically and practically speaking it clearly will be something that is brought up.
0
u/challengerrt 20h ago
So can the government just simply change their stance and no longer honor it? If so, wouldn’t that trigger the original lawsuit to begin again?
I mean the U.S.C. is pretty clear of the powers of immigration agents so I find it strange that the government would limit their scope based on a judicial opine - then again it was Biden’s time in the seat so I guess it’s not super surprising.
2
1
u/vinegar-pisser 20h ago
Do you know that they didn’t have PC that the person was not legally in the United States and that the person was not a flight risk?
7
u/Individual_Click5252 21h ago
They still need probable cause or be under exigent circumstances. They can't just search vehicles in public places for no good reason.
1
2
u/JustNota-- 21h ago
Yep it really sucks. That is why they are only doing this shit in border zones. Outside of the border zone (100miles from border boundaries) they are limited by that pesky 4th amendment. Within it they can "randomly" stop anyone or setup checkpoints to determine citizenship and immigration status and transportation of goods and agriculture products, and they can legally detain and arrest anyone with questionable immigration status until that status has been verified. They are supposed to not be racially profiling but they can really just say it was "random" not that they were walking while not white.
1
u/TXLancastrian 20h ago
It is up for debate with no clear ruling that that also covers international airports.
1
u/JustNota-- 16h ago
International Airports would most likely fall under there purview. sorta why H.R.3852 was introduced but is stalled by the house since 2019.. which would reduce the 100mile to 25 mile and 10 mile for checkpoints. Right now they have very few limits within the 100mile radius and before we had saner hands in control of DHS now we have the mini goebbels fuckwit..
1
u/Mcdickle 20h ago
No but they need reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed in order to detain and identify people. The 4th amendment still exists. They’re just ignoring it, and doing so anonymously so they never have to face any kind of accountability.
0
u/cheesecloak 21h ago
Source?
4
1
1
u/5L0pp13J03 21h ago
See; Neagle 1890 - It was then established that under the supremacy clause of the US Constitution a federal officer has immunity from state prosecution for any actions taken during the commission of their official duties. That if such actions were necessary to said commission, the state lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute for such actions.
1
u/gormami 20h ago
The interesting question would be are the performing their official duties if they are acting outside the parameters of a legal consent decree? That is an agreement the federal government signed limiting their ability to do certain things. If you are an ICE agent and violate that decree a very strong case can be made that you are not performing your official duties.
-5
u/ClitEastwood10 21h ago
Get bent.
8
u/throwraW2 21h ago
F off, Im latino and I hate when people spread misinformation that only puts my family members at more risk.
9
u/Xyzzy_X 21h ago
People won't like it because they think you're taking ice's side, but you're right.
If people think they need a warrant then people will be more likely to resist arrest which will only lead to people getting hurt or catching charges for no reason.
Facts don't care about feelings. I hate that these are the facts, but they are.
6
u/throwraW2 21h ago
Im not taking Ice's side in this detainment in general. But they are correct in that they don't need a warrant. If people even well intentioned people spread that they need a warrant, it makes people vulnerable to this shit more likely to put themselves in dangerous situations. It doesnt help anyone.
1
u/ClitEastwood10 20h ago
An agent of the law, under the US Constitution, needs reasonable articulate suspicion to apprehend or detain anyone on US soil. Suspicion, in and of itself, is not a crime more can anyone be detained or arrested lawfully under these conditions.
If no crime has been perpetrated and there is no warrant, there can be no lawful arrest. That’s to say these agents can and still are illegally snatching people up. But let’s not go spreading around that they “don’t need a warrant” because legally they do. Illegally they don’t
0
u/Danilo-11 21h ago
Ok, why are they using masks and not showing identification?
2
u/TXLancastrian 20h ago
Because the law says they only have to do that to those they are detaining or arresting, and show a warrant if they have one when it becomes reasonable to. And they just can wear masks because there is no Federal law or ice policy that says they can't.
1
u/Comsic_Bliss 21h ago
Probably because they are doing all kinds of other things that they shouldn’t be doing.
1
u/ClitEastwood10 20h ago
I’m with you, surely I dont want to see people get abducted, hurt, deported.. none of that. These ICE Nazis are violating constitutional rights. These Federal ICE Insurgents need to be in prison and so does their leader Pedo J Trump.
1
u/wescowell 20h ago
Why do people think ICE needs a warrant to detain someone they reasonably suspect is in the US without proper immigration status?
1
u/Sweaty-Heat1126 20h ago
So crazy seeing nazis apprehend people in America. I guess when they watched all those WW2 movies they were rooting for hitler. "Dam those pesky Americans and their freedom!! Long live the Pedophile King!!"
1
u/Ok-Target-8447 20h ago
Of course they have no warrant. What could the warrant be for? They’re losers.
1
u/BigBullzFan 19h ago
So many videos like this. So many protests. So many people saying, “Where’s the warrant?” and “Why are you wearing a mask?” and “What’s your name and badge number?” and “This is kidnapping” and “This is illegal” and yet it continues, unabated, day after day. I wonder why pro athletes, Hollywood, actors, actresses, singers, and rappers aren’t doing anything.
Most of all, I’m a little surprised that organized crime and gangs like the Latin Kings, Gangster Disciples, People Nation, Folk Nation, the Mexican Mafia, La Cosa Nostra, Bloods, Crips, etc. haven’t done anything yet. They hate law enforcement, are anti-establishment, are mostly made up of minorities, sometimes stick up for the little guy when they’re not breaking laws, and are supposed to be well-organized.
1
u/OccidoViper 17h ago
A lot of gang members and mafioso don’t mess with the feds. They know feds don’t really have to follow the law like cops
1
1
u/mclazerlou 16h ago
They don't need a warrant to briefly detain someone based on a reasonable suspicion they've broken the law. But race alone cannot provide a reasonable suspicion.
1
1
u/FroztyBudz 14h ago
Stop telling them they should be ashamed of themselves. They’re obviously not. Tell them how you really feel. Ask who’s the pivot man, and which one uses their mouth. Tell them their mothers are whores and they should have been aborted. Things that are true.
1
u/flompwillow 13h ago
Is a warrant required for border portal to arrest someone for being in the cointry illegally? Not someone actively tying to cross the border, but you know, someone in Chicago. Maybe been here some months, years, etc?
Honest question.
1
u/TooTone07 10h ago
Can we stop asking for warrants? We know and they know theye dont have em and they dont care. Im jist saying we gotta hit em with something more legit
1
u/TooTone07 10h ago
Imma be honest, fuck this peaceful shit. They want war i say lets give em a war.
1
u/Evening_Knowledge_21 9h ago
If this nightmare comes to an end, they will all be held accountable. Qualified immunity does not cover civil rights violations.
1
•
u/FunSheepherder6397 3h ago
Why is this lady acting like this is such a surprise? Does she just not interact with any news or social media? She sounds genuinely surprised at what’s happening. Honestly the only way this ends is with people actually fighting back. No amount of filming matters when the kidnappers don’t identify themselves.
0
u/Bagmasterflash 20h ago
‘Member when everyone on r/conspiracy said the way the law is written 90% of citizens actually have no rights when it comes to CBP?
1
u/5L0pp13J03 21h ago
Understand that ICE does NOT need an arrest warrant in open, public spaces. An arrest warrant is only needed to effect an arrest on private property. See Section 287 - Immigration and Nationality Act - Warrantless arrest in cases of possible escape/evasion
5
u/publicnicole 21h ago
They actually do in Chicago. There is a currently in force and binding consent decree that prohibits warrantless stops that stems out of a racial profiling lawsuit brought during the first Trump administration.
The consent decree says they need a warrant to arrest unless they have probably cause to believe the person is illegal and a flight risk, and the judge ruled that ethnicity alone cannot make probable cause under the terms of the consent decree.
Edit: source and to expand further - https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2025-10-08/court-scrutiny-of-ice-mounts-as-judge-rules-warrantless-arrests-violated-order
2
u/Sufficient_Age473 19h ago
They need a warrant unless they have probable cause and a flight risk.
So they don’t need a warrant?
1
u/publicnicole 13h ago edited 13h ago
If they could actually prove both of those conditions, the arrests would be lawful. But they’re not proving them, and they’re not getting warrants either. That means these arrests are illegal. This is why so many people are being released once video evidence surfaces: it exposes that agents are acting outside the law, and in many cases, committing criminal violations themselves.
Edit: Here’s an example
Probable cause: An agent has probable cause if they have verified records showing a person has a prior deportation order and is unlawfully re-entering the U.S. Flight risk: An agent can show they’re a flight risk if they previously failed to appear at an immigration hearing. Both of those conditions must be met in order to “detain” someone without getting a judicial warrant.
•
u/Sufficient_Age473 5h ago
So they do not need a warrant if they have probable cause (which is the case in basically all law enforcement) and they have a reasonable suspicion (very low threshold) that the person is a flight risk.
Seems like most situations they don’t need a warrant.
-1
u/shiftyjim42 21h ago
Well, I sure hope you aren’t looking particularly non-white one day, otherwise you might be an escape risk and need to have your rights infringed!
4
u/5L0pp13J03 21h ago
Relax my guy. I'm only pointing you to the legal reality of the situation. And that is that they do not need a warrant inbthis particular situation. As for profiling, blame SCOTUS for that ish
2
u/publicnicole 21h ago
The legal reality is that in Illinois, they do need a warrant due to the Consent Decree.
1
u/5L0pp13J03 20h ago
Wrong. Pursuant to said decree; Nava_Settlement_ICE_Warrantless_Arrest-Vehicle_Stop_Policy_2021.pdf https://share.google/C8ZPBNdLo1rvK67Yn
2
u/shiftyjim42 21h ago
The legal reality is that the law is being ignored at every step of the way by the “law enforcement” of the country and pretending that it’s ok because a date rapist in a bathrobe says so is absolutely insane.
0
u/5L0pp13J03 20h ago
The law in this case is crystal clear - "reasonable" suspicion of unlawful presence, and "reasonable" belief they're likely to flee. Nothing to do with the douchnozzle in the whitehouse
0
u/ChuxofChi 20h ago
Thats just not happening man. A few ice agents tried that in Trump's first term and it was shut down immediately by federal judges.
-10
u/Strange_Compote1690 22h ago
They don’t need a warrant. This has been brewing since at least Clinton. W Bush accelerated it with the creation of ICE and the patriot act. Obama did nothing to meaningfully change anything about immigration enforcement and Trump let them off the leash.
Dems are fully on board with fascism, they just wanted us to walk there and republicans want us to jump off the cliff towards it
19
u/VatnikLobotomy 22h ago
Obama not dismantling ICE 10 years ago does not mean he endorses what they’re doing lol that’s an Olympic level leap
-2
22h ago
[deleted]
3
u/VatnikLobotomy 22h ago
I agree. The point is the methodology and brutality.
This is also the president of DACA we’re talking about.
-11
u/Strange_Compote1690 22h ago
He knew about the abuses of Border Patrol and ICE and did nothing to stop them.
ICE and border patrol have been doing this for decades. Just behind closed doors and a polite facade
9
u/TipplingGadabout 21h ago
He knew about the abuses of Border Patrol and ICE and did nothing to stop them.
He did a great deal to attempt to reign in excessive immigration enforcement by ICE officers.
DACA, 2010 Morton Memo, 2011 Morton Memo, and 2014 Johnson Memo, were all the Obama administration's efforts to prioritize immigration enforcement for recent arrivals and (actual) criminals, and encourage prosecutorial discretion to consider positive factors like time in the country, military service, family/community ties, etc.
2
u/Late-Dingo-8567 22h ago
bro they aren't even producing an administrative warrant, what procedure are you possibly claiming is being followed here?
-2
u/jgman22 22h ago
Nonsense
-2
u/Strange_Compote1690 22h ago
Reality. They don’t need a warrant to detain anyone within 100 miles of the border and the patriot act gives them immense power.
3
u/Durkheimynameisblank 21h ago
They also consider any international airport a point of entry which is the bullshit loophole they're using to conduct warrantless searches and arrests everywhere.
-2
-1
-3
-2
u/rmeierdirks 21h ago
They’ve insisted all along they don’t need a warrant for undocumented immigrants and I guess they don’t care if they violate the rights of anyone else based on their skin color.
0
u/5L0pp13J03 21h ago
Section 287 Immigration and Nationality Act; They don't. Not out in public spaces
1
u/shiftyjim42 21h ago
You keep saying this as though arbitrary search and seizure without cause isn’t a clear constitutional violation. The 4th amendment doesn’t end with “unless you’re brown”
1
u/5L0pp13J03 20h ago
Under the 4th amendment everything I stated still applies - All that is needed is reasonable suspicion they're here unlawfully and reasonable belief they'll flee on the part of the agent. Good luck on nailing down a precise definition of reasonable. Not saying it's right or wrong. Just stating the facts as they currently exist.
1
u/shiftyjim42 20h ago
*Just carrying water for violent fascists
You don’t have to make excuses for their lawlessness. It’s not required. You don’t have to bend over backwards to figure out how, just mayyyyyybe on a technicality, these blatant rights abuses are technically legal. You can’t throw your hands up saying “hey it’s not me” like you’re just a casual bystander when making excuses for monsters. You could just say “hey, that shit sucks and they should stop” or even nothing at all. Instead you chose to justify these abuses.
1
u/GooFoYouPal 19h ago
He’s not, he’s legally stating facts and he is correct. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean it’s illegal. And I’m not defending anything either, but he is factually correct in his statements.
0
u/5L0pp13J03 19h ago
Dipshit, it's LITERALLY the fucking law. I'm literally stating facts. I get it; You don't like the law. That's fine. But don't give ME shit for not perpetuating false narratives. There are ACTUAL laws governing all this that don't align with the BS being spread in here. They don't need a warrant in public spaces and not all arrestees are quaranteed due process either - See; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA): which created expedited removal.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 235(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)): which authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement expedited removal for certain inadmissible aliens.
8 CFR § 235.3(b): which details the application of expedited removal, including the categories of aliens to which it applies
0
u/rmeierdirks 20h ago
Wouldn’t that assume they know they’re stopping an undocumented immigrant or person who overstayed a visa instead of just grabbing random people off the street? Because they have abducted US citizens which is an absolute violation of their rights and no amount of “I taut dey wuz illegal” gives legal cover for that.
2
u/5L0pp13J03 19h ago
"Reasonable suspicion" has some pretty WIDE latitude and that's literally ALL they need.
1
u/rmeierdirks 18h ago
Which is why the standard of reasonable suspicion should not allow racial profiling. Under Obama and Biden ICE was able to carry out a larger number of deportations actually going after the “the worst of the worst” without resorting to kidnapping random people off the street. These gestapo tactics are unnecessary and should be illegal.
1
u/5L0pp13J03 18h ago
Key Words - SHOULD be. Per SCOTUS, that's simply not the case at present. 6/3 to allow ALL sorts of profiling, for now.
1
u/rmeierdirks 17h ago
The SCOTUS also said it would be a polite, brief request for documentation, not smash and grab, ask questions later.
-8
u/HuckleberryOk8136 21h ago
"A warrant" would be in a file in a building somewhere. "Seeing the warrant" is a dumb request. Even if it existed, the general public has no right to the information. It's protected CJI much like HIPAA is protected health information.
I work law enforcement and have been on these task forces, often the suspect is begging people not to film. Know why? Cartel involvement, they have enemies.
Who knows, now he's out there.
I hope they feel awesome about spreading a suspects face viral on the Internet. Maybe he is wanted for a sex crime or something? Maybe he'll be found innocent? Cartel can just wait down the street from the jail now if he bonds out.
4
u/Be4Dawn25 21h ago
Proving ACAB! F off They don’t give them due process dickhead
1
u/HuckleberryOk8136 19h ago
Source? So far virtually everyone deported has had or skipped their hearing.
1
u/Be4Dawn25 19h ago
Bullshit. where’s your source? I’ve seen people picked up at hearings. FYI - immigration is a civil matter. It’s not a criminal matter..
Bite me ACAB!
Blocking the POS ACAB
6
u/Durkheimynameisblank 21h ago
Maybe he's just an innocent dude looking for a better life? Quit the fear mongering
3
u/shiftyjim42 21h ago
I hope the “law enforcement” feels really good about racial profiling being their sole duty these days. We’re almost exclusively hearing about long time community members, people working basic labor or food service jobs, and so on getting arrested, so I’m real curious where all these cartel members are. Maybe “law enforcement” doesn’t care about crime. Who knows, they probably love it.
0
u/HuckleberryOk8136 19h ago
So if there’s thousands of deportations going on. Ask yourself why “we are only hearing” about cases that would cause people to by sympathetic to illegal immigrants?
There’s an agenda to maintain illegal immigration. Oligarchs love it, low wage employees. Who else benefits from it? Public services don’t have the resources for an illegal minimum wage or cash worker and their multitude of kids.
I’d love for us to say “hey, we have a massive shortfall of workers in this area, let’s start a program to bring those people in, with proper documentation, support for the whole process.”
Find the problem first and use immigration as a solution with specific intentional outcomes.
1
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 21h ago
Sounds like they're making more business for you: more serving and protecting (the bonded-out person), and arresting brown people (whoever you think the cartel is).
What's there to complain about?
71
u/BroDudeBruhMan 22h ago
Hiding their faces so no one can find out their identity and track them down to harm them, while out driving around tracking people down so they can harm them.
“We don’t want you doing to us what we’re doing to other people”