Post New

"I keep asking two questions as ICE runs wild. First, what is the strategy here? How do Trump, Stephen Miller, etc. think this is going to work for them? Maybe their initial belief was that a display of force would shock and awe their opponents into submission. It’s not happening, yet they just keep ramping up the threats and violence, apparently not knowing how to do anything else.

The obvious answer is that there isn’t any strategy. These people aren’t evil masterminds — evil, yes, but masterminds, no. They’re just thugs too crude and undisciplined to control their own thuggishness. They were caught off guard by the strength of the resistance because the very concept of citizens standing up for their principles is alien to them, and they still can’t believe it’s real.

The second question is, how does this end? Most immediately, what will happen during and after the midterm elections? Everything points to a blue wave in November. Yet many people in MAGA simply can’t accept losing power — among other things, their actions over the past year mean that if they lose power, many of them will go to jail.

Trump is now calling for “nationalizing” the midterms, meaning to put voting and the counting of votes under his administration’s control. He can’t do that, but his demand is a clear sign that he will not accept the public’ s verdict in November.

So it’s just being realistic to say that MAGA will try, somehow, to prevent voters from having their say. Will ICE try to prevent blue districts from voting? If that fails, will they reject the results, in a midterm version of Jan. 6? Call me alarmist, but remember: The alarmists have been right, and the people telling us to calm down have been wrong, every step of the way." —Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize laureate

The alarmists have been right, and the people telling us to calm down have been wrong, every step of the way."

All through the 24 campaign, some were saying, simply "believe what he says he will do".

His seizure of Georgia voting records, and terrorizing brown people may be part of the same strategy to influence elections. If he can make some of the ballots seized "go away", he will proclaim that "proof" the Georgia election system cannot be trusted. Then have a phalanx of ICE storm troopers at polling places in heavily minority/Dem leaning areas, to pull every person of color out of line and subject them to detention and interrogation, until the polls close. How many Hispanics, solid, loyal, US citizens, will approach a polling place, see storm troopers dragging Hispanics away, and simply turn around and walk away, to avoid being rousted by the store troopers, rather than vote?

7 in 10 Latinos disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president

As of September, 27% of Latinos approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. Meanwhile, 70% disapprove, including a 55% majority who say they strongly disapprove of his job performance.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/202...

Steve

The alarmists have been right, and the people telling us to calm down have been wrong, every step of the way.

I mean - have they?

Alarmists thought that the Trump Administration would be out here banning abortion right and left, clamping down with the Comstock Act and running roughshod over access to reproductive health...and that hasn't really happened.

Similarly, we were concerned that the Administration would simply ignore any court orders they disliked, and declare themselves the final arbiters of what the law meant. And that hasn't happened either. When they ultimately get cornered with an unambiguous court order that they can't pretend to comply with, they fold (bye bye Habba and Halligan). And even though they like to play the appellate "let's wait until the decision is final" game, they actually have ended up not appealing a lot of the cases they lose at the lower levels.

We also were concerned that the Administration would just ignore Congressional appropriations and willfully violate the Impoundment Act. And they haven't done that, and they've folded on that issue.

We haven't seen Trump leave NATO, abandon aid for Ukraine, or invade Greenland (or Panama). Concerns about Trump cutting Medicare and/or Social Security didn't materialize.

And, of course, TACO. Another of Trump's superpowers is that he's able to try ten things, have eight work out the way he wants and get blasted on the other two, but then just backpedal on the two and pocket the eight wins. He has zero caution on this stuff, and he forces people to actually fight back or he'll just do what he wants. But when people do resist, then he knows where the real lines are. Not the lines that people say are lines, but the real lines. And he generally doesn't cross those real lines.

Heck, even with this latest provocation over the Fulton County voting records, he didn't just call out the military and seize the documents. His Administration went to court, got a warrant from a judge, and served the warrant.

I do not in any way want to suggest that the Administration hasn't done objectively bad things, and hasn't trampled over a massive number of 'guardrails' and principles of good government or "not engaged in graft and corruption." But they have operated within the universe of "doing stuff that doesn't completely break the country," which means we should take predictions that they will do stuff that will completely break the country with a bit of a grain of salt.

He can’t do that, but his demand is a clear sign that he will not accept the public’ s verdict in November.

Lock him up--all by himself--at Gitmo. Many problems solved with one 'click!"

Steve203: His seizure of Georgia voting records, and terrorizing...

Here's what's going to happen: former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro will 'admit' that his government worked with (Obama, the DNC, or name your favorite liberal villain) to steal the 2020 election from Trumpedo. In exchange, he and his wife will get the Ghislaine Maxwell Club Fed treatment, complete with puppy dogs, roaming around privileges, and special handling.

Pardons to come later.

attempting to be brief here.
trump's 'wins' are an absolute retrospective perversion despite the vagueness of his promises. let's take a few main topics.

immigration -
promised : deporting violent criminals
outcomes : toss in a few citizens and murdered protestors, so still a victory?

affordabilty :
promised : for the undereducated working man, normal consumption
outcomes : the richest got richer and thus luxury has become more attainable than ever.

trade deficit, ukraine peace, epstein, etc...
beyond hilarious.

soon there will be claims these things are very tough and he needs another term.

Alarmists thought that the Trump Administration would be out here banning abortion right and left, clamping down with the Comstock Act and running roughshod over access to reproductive health...and that hasn't really happened.

Maybe he really doesn't give a hoot about "abortion". He paid lip service to keep the religious nutters on board.

Similarly, we were concerned that the Administration would simply ignore any court orders they disliked,

I posted a link about ICE ignoring 96 court orders, just over the last couple months, just in Minnesota.

We also were concerned that the Administration would just ignore Congressional appropriations and willfully violate the Impoundment Act.

Yesterday, I posted about Trump bypassing Congress and sending another $6.5B in weapons to Israel. This is the third time he has done that in a year.

We haven't seen Trump leave NATO, abandon aid for Ukraine, or invade Greenland (or Panama).

Then there is the Venezuelan op, and constant war mongering wrt Iran, complete with military buildup in the area.

His Administration went to court, got a warrant from a judge, and served the warrant.

ICE has decreed that it doesn't need a judicial warrant. They can write their own warrant, or dispense with warrants entirely.

Expanding on the assault on voting. He has complained, loud and long, about "mail in voting". Why? It's harder to intimidate voters when they mail in their ballots, rather than standing in line at a polling place. And what is with the demand for detailed voter registration information from many states? How could detailed information be used?

scenario: sift the voter registration roles for non-white sounding names. See what precinct those non-white sounding people vote in. See if that precinct skews Dem or GOP. If it skews Dem, dispatch a squad of storm troopers to the polling place, with a list of all the non-white sounding people that vote there. Then they approach every non-white looking person standing in line, demanding name and address. They find the non-white person on their "list", pull them out of line, and detain them for "questioning" until after the polls close.

We have seem some remarkable things over the last few years. Don't bank on no more remarkable things happening.

Steve

We have seem some remarkable things over the last few years. Don't bank on no more remarkable things happening.

True, but not everything that alarmists said were going to happen. And indeed, most of the worst of the things haven't happened.

The Administration isn't complying with low-level orders in individual cases...perhaps a lot of them, but they're not doing what people were really alarmed at: just rebuking the upper level courts and refusing to allow the judiciary to rule on matters of law.

The Administration is finding lots of ways to move money (and arms) around without going to Congress...but they're doing it the way they've done most of their stuff: dusting off the statute book and realizing that there's tons of "emergency" powers that legally give the President the authority to do a ton of this carp, as long as he's willing to spit in Congress' eye.

scenario: sift the voter registration roles for non-white sounding names. See what precinct those non-white sounding people vote in. See if that precinct skews Dem or GOP. If it skews Dem, dispatch a squad of storm troopers to the polling place, with a list of all the non-white sounding people that vote there. Then they approach every non-white looking person standing in line, demanding name and address. They find the non-white person on their "list", pull them out of line, and detain them for "questioning" until after the polls close.

If they did that, they'd almost certainly lose that election. It's so unbelievably transparent that a legal challenge would certainly be successful, and the court would probably order the election to be rerun. Even close Congressional elections are decided by thousands of votes. In order to have a chance of this succeeding, you'd need to flood that Congressional district with hundreds of LEO's removing thousands of people. No way that doesn't get lambasted in the courts.

Which makes it a stupid idea. A really stupid idea. Because this can only change the outcome in a close election (ie. one decided by less than a percentage point). If you try it, you're vastly more likely to have your candidate destroyed in court than the chance of the candidate actually winning the close election. IOW, you don't know whether the GOP candidate has won or lost the election during the time people are voting, so if you try this shenanigan you're far more likely to cost a candidate that would have won than flip an election they would have lost.

Note - I have absolutely no doubt that the Administration (and other Republican officials) will try to use their power in various ways, large and small, to try to favor GOP candidates. And I have no doubt that they will do so in ways that the Democrats believe are cheating, voter suppression, or election interference. But this type of naked election-rigging is such a phenomenally low-reward approach that it's not at all feasible.

True, but not everything that alarmists said were going to happen.

We're only one year in. We are seeing cities terrorized by storm troopers, and one country subjugated. Imagine where we will be after four years.

In order to have a chance of this succeeding, you'd need to flood that Congressional district with hundreds of LEO's removing thousands of people.

The regime has manpower:

ICE Announces Historic 120% Manpower Increase, Thanks to Recruitment Campaign that Brought in 12,000 Officers and Agents

After receiving more than 220,000 applications to join ICE from patriotic Americans, ICE blew past its original hiring target of 10,000 new officers and agents within a year. In fact, we have more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000. With these new patriots on the team, we will be able to accomplish what many say was impossible and fulfill President Trump’s promise to make America safe again.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/03/ice-announces-...

No way that doesn't get lambasted in the courts.

Remember the 2004 election? The Bush campaign in Ohio was run by the person who was also the state official responsible for running the election in the state. Everything went smoothly in the GOP leaning, more rural, districts in the state. But the Dem leaning, union heavy, cities of Toledo and Cleveland were a cluster. Precincts were mysteriously short of voting machines, and some of the machines they did have mysteriously broke down. The polls in Ohio close at 7:30pm. On election night, the 11pm local Detroit news showed a live helo shot of people in Toledo, lined up, down the street, and around the corner, still trying to vote.


Objection to certification of Ohio's electoral votes
See also: 2004 United States election voting controversies

On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a congressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes due to alleged irregularities including disqualification of provisional ballots, alleged misallocation of voting machines, and disproportionately long waits in predominantly African-American communities.[11][12] Ohio's polling locations and equipment are determined by two Democrats and two Republicans serving on the county's Board of Elections, which ensures that any decision made about polling resources is bipartisan.[13] The Senate voted the objection down 74–1; the House voted the objection down 267–31.[11] At the time, it was only the second congressional objection to an entire U.S. state's electoral delegation in American history; the first instance was in 1877, when all the electors from three Southern states in the 1876 United States presidential election were challenged, and one from Oregon.[11][14] The third instance was in 2021, when Republicans objected to the certification of the electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania. An objection to a single faithless elector was also filed in 1969.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_p...

Of course, the concerns about the 2004 Ohio vote were written off, by the winners, as "Bush derangement syndrome"

Steve

If they did that, they'd almost certainly lose that election. It's so unbelievably transparent that a legal challenge would certainly be successful, and the court would probably order the election to be rerun.

I didn’t know what pollyanish meant until I read your posts.

They don’t need to do this. Black and brown people are already afraid to leave their homes or send their children to school. And you don’t have to be undocumented to live in fear. Fortunately ICE has never deported a citizen or detained a legal resident, so citizens of color need not fear.

Having ICE on the streets of Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, LA, etc. on Election Day should be sufficient interference.

But you do law. Your arguments will look so timely, so right and so prophetic this coming December.

Alpologia is thy name.

Having ICE on the streets of Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, LA, etc. on Election Day should be sufficient interference.

But you do law. Your arguments will look so timely, so right and so prophetic this coming December.

Alpologia is thy name.

Why? I don't disagree with anything you said in your post. In fact, I noted in my original post that I was quite confident that the Administration (and other GOP electeds) will use the powers that they have to do things to tilt the playing field in their favor. And that they would do things that the Democrats would label as voter suppression. That's not a bold prediction on my part, BTW - it happens in almost every election.

I was pointing out to Steve that his specific scenario was far-fetched and would not happen. Because it is so transparent as to be self-defeating.

I was slightly confused by this point, though:

They don’t need to do this. Black and brown people are already afraid to leave their homes or send their children to school. And you don’t have to be undocumented to live in fear. Fortunately ICE has never deported a citizen or detained a legal resident, so citizens of color need not fear.

Were you being sarcastic, and I'm just missing it? If citizens of color need not fear ICE, then it seems unlikely that simply having ICE on the street would affect voter turnout.

Black and brown people who are afraid to leave their homes and send their kids to school are overwhelmingly afraid to do so because of the threats posed in their local communities by other black and brown people.

Make your argument, but make it based on actual statistics and facts.

Most of the people protesting ICE are privileged white liberals and progressives.

Albaby1,

Just because Steve comes from an obvious place of paranoid delusions and omniscience, and is clearly wrong about many things, doesn't make you right.

It's possible for more than one person to be wrong, including yourself.

That's not a bold prediction on my part, BTW - it happens in almost every election.

“And there you go again”.

Every time you say this kind of thing you carry water for those who argue that what we are currently experiencing is politics as usual. You are whistling past the graveyard of American democracy.

Sarcasm escapes you.

Every time you say this kind of thing you carry water for those who argue that what we are currently experiencing is politics as usual. You are whistling past the graveyard of American democracy.

One can simultaneous observe that we are not experiencing politics as usual and that we are not at the point where someone could successfully start pulling large numbers of registered voters out of line in public and preventing them from voting and not have that invalidate the election.

It isn't a binary. It isn't "everything is completely normal" and "everything is already a totalitarian dictatorship where elections are a sham because there are no independent power centers and no independent judiciary." And because it isn't a binary, someone making an argument that a totalitarian scenario is legitimately on the table can't support that argument merely by rhetorically noting that things aren't completely normal. And because it isn't a binary, someone pointing out that a totalitarian scenario is unlikely isn't saying that things are completely normal.

Most of the swing elections in the House are in blue or purple states. They are (by definition) in purple areas even of red states. Spinning up a large enough ICE presence in major cities is visible - it requires coordination and planning in advance - which means that there are plenty of opportunities not just for private parties, but also state and county governments, to go into federal court and ask for an injunction to prevent them from doing the sorts of things that would interfere with a citizen's right to vote on election day. To say nothing of the fact that most of the swing districts are in jurisdictions that have both early voting and mail-in absentee ballots - which ups the degree of difficulty on trying to change the outcome just on a single Election Day presence.

There will undoubtedly be things that the Administration does that will affect voter behavior - it happens every election. There will undoubtedly be elections that are decided by a very small number of votes - it happens every election. And there will undoubtedly be people who claim that the former changed the outcome of the latter - it happens every election. Because this Administration is what it is, I have no doubt that they will do things that are unprecedented - but I also think it is unlikely that they will go so far over the line as the type of scenario that Steve (and others) sometimes imagine, because that just ends up making a very GOP-winnable election into a possible judicial problem.

Sarcasm escapes you.

Sarcasm doesn't scan on internet message boards, which is why folks rarely use it without a <sarcasm> tag or emoji. It's not an effective way of communicating. Which is why I asked if you were being sarcastic - not because I was unaware of the possibility, but because it's not a medium in which sarcasm actually comes through.

that we are not at the point where someone could successfully start pulling large numbers of registered voters out of line in public and preventing them from voting and not have that invalidate the election.

I agree, the scenario I proposed would be an extreme example. That being said, one of ICE's favorite places to grab people, over the past year, is at immigration court, when people are complying with the law by showing up for their hearing on their asylum claim. I am not going to say that scenario is impossible, because we have seen so many things happen over the last several years, that would have been deemed impossible, in the late 70s.

Steve

That being said, one of ICE's favorite places to grab people, over the past year, is at immigration court, when people are complying with the law by showing up for their hearing on their asylum claim. I am not going to say that scenario is impossible, because we have seen so many things happen over the last several years, that would have been deemed impossible, in the late 70s.

They show up at immigration court because there's lots of undocumented folks there. Undocumented people have to go to immigration court. It's a target-rich environment, so they can make their quota of detaining as many folks as possible. I mean, sure - they're grabbing mostly rules-compliant and otherwise law-abiding folks (the ones who voluntarily show up for hearings). But that's so much easier than going after violent criminals! It's just efficient!

But that's not true at a polling place. There's little reason for people who are undocumented to go there. Even if you subscribe to conservative fever dreams about the undocumented voting in large numbers, they're pretty unlikely to do that via in-person election day voting, rather than other methods.

And I think you're wrong about the late 1970's. Those folks were in the immediate aftermath of Watergate and ABSCAM - I doubt there's much going on today they would have thought impossible. At best unlikely, but certainly within the realm of possibility. Other than the Russia stuff.

It isn't a binary. It isn't "everything is completely normal" and "everything is already a totalitarian dictatorship where elections are a sham because there are no independent power centers and no independent judiciary." And because it isn't a binary, someone making an argument that a totalitarian scenario is legitimately on the table can't support that argument merely by rhetorically noting that things aren't completely normal. And because it isn't a binary, someone pointing out that a totalitarian scenario is unlikely isn't saying that things are completely normal.

Are you waiting to call the tipping point? How long did people wait in Germany to make the call? Was it 1933 when the Nazis burned the Reichstag and effed with the March election? Was it 1934 when Hitler became Fuhrer and the Gestapo was established? Was it 1935 with the Nuremberg codes? Or Kristallnacht in 1938?

The totalitarian scenario is unlikely until it isn’t. This fascist government is telegraphing its moves and you seem satisfied to wait and see if it succeeds or fails. Waiting for the courts to save the day is a fools errand. The moment for direct confrontation with fascism has arrived. The people of Minneapolis are showing the way. It’s time for governors to step up and confront the federal implementation of fascism directly by asserting state authority over the instruments of state power—the police and state national guard units.

Many state constitutions include habeas corpus provisions. Governors should begin using state law enforcement agencies to protect and defend citizens habeas corpus rights in the face of their violation by agents of the federal government. Arrest ICE agents for violating state laws, including the infringements against habeas corpus. Let the feds sue the states in federal court and wait for the slow cogs of judicial authority to work themselves out. In the meantime, state governments would be acting to protect their citizens from the abuse of federal authority.

The time for concrete action is now, not ten months from now when we wake up and realize it’s too late.

The totalitarian scenario is unlikely until it isn’t. This fascist government is telegraphing its moves and you seem satisfied to wait and see if it succeeds or fails. Waiting for the courts to save the day is a fools errand. The moment for direct confrontation with fascism has arrived. The people of Minneapolis are showing the way. It’s time for governors to step up and confront the federal implementation of fascism directly by asserting state authority over the instruments of state power—the police and state national guard units.


Yup.

Albaby1,

You say "it isn't binary."

That's obvious.

What you fail to acknowledge that to the many leftists on here who seem to have at least sub-clinical levels of personality disorders, "splitting" is a very common symptom.

Everything is good or bad, black or white.

They see the world as "binary."

It's possible for more than one person to be wrong, including yourself.

Keep looking at the mirror. Reflect much? Maybe NOT....

The people of Minneapolis are showing the way. It’s time for governors to step up and confront the federal implementation of fascism directly by asserting state authority over the instruments of state power—the police and state national guard units.

Which doesn't work to fight fascism or totalitarianism. It works to push back on policies you think are terrible within a functioning democratic system, where protests and the independent autonomy of State sovereign governments exists as a separate check on federal power.

What's happened in Minnesota is a rebuke against the idea that the Administration is in a place where they're willing (or able) to step across the hard lines between democracy and authoritarianism.

Many state constitutions include habeas corpus provisions. Governors should begin using state law enforcement agencies to protect and defend citizens habeas corpus rights in the face of their violation by agents of the federal government. Arrest ICE agents for violating state laws, including the infringements against habeas corpus. Let the feds sue the states in federal court and wait for the slow cogs of judicial authority to work themselves out. In the meantime, state governments would be acting to protect their citizens from the abuse of federal authority.

That wouldn't work. State habeus protections aren't applicable to federal detention.

Nor is there any reason to think that's necessary. The federal courts are still issuing plenty of writs under federal habeus petition, and the Administration is still recognizing the authority of the federal courts to do that and complying. Fitfully, dragging their feet, sometimes requiring lots of punitive sanctions to force them to do it....but ultimately complying. Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia ultimately was brought into a federal court. Mahmoud Khalil was eventually released from detention.

The time for concrete action is now, not ten months from now when we wake up and realize it’s too late.

Sure. No one disagrees. Organize! Protest! File legal challenges! Be prepared to push back on Election Day issues! That necessity in no way means that every imagined authoritarian scenario is plausible, or even that it should be taken seriously.

Which doesn't work to fight fascism or totalitarianism. It works to push back on policies you think are terrible within a functioning democratic system, where protests and the independent autonomy of State sovereign governments exists as a separate check on federal power.

What's happened in Minnesota is a rebuke against the idea that the Administration is in a place where they're willing (or able) to step across the hard lines between democracy and authoritarianism.

You defeat fascism BEFORE it consolidates power by using all the tools available to impede and defeat that consolidation, including exercising the decentralized power of the states and state constitutions.

Let the feds sue states to see if it would work or not. Put the feds on the defensive for a change.

You defeat fascism BEFORE it consolidates power by using all the tools available to impede and defeat that consolidation, including exercising the decentralized power of the states and state constitutions.

Let the feds sue states to see if it would work or not.

Why would they have to sue?

A detainee files a petition for writ of habeus corpus in state court, with the federal government named as the opposing party. The federal government files a motion in response to the petition for writ noting that the state court lacks jurisdiction over federal detention, and asks either that the petition be dismissed (for having been filed in the wrong court) or that the case be removed to federal court. And the state court will grant that motion, because that's what the law requires. If the petitioner is not in the custody of state officials, and is instead in the custody of federal officials, a state habeus petition will not be available.

It's a one- or two-page motion, not a lawsuit.

That wouldn't work. State habeus protections aren't applicable to federal detention.

Deny the federal detention until they produce individual warrants for each ALLEGED "federal" detainee. No warrant = NOT a valid detention and the person is released.

Until the feds fix THEIR problem, nobody is bothered--except the feds. They are not able to keep up NOW--and they are losing fed employees all the time. MORE people chose to leave the DOJ rather than participate in Spankee's criminally fraudulent activities.

Deny the federal detention until they produce individual warrants for each ALLEGED "federal" detainee. No warrant = NOT a valid detention and the person is released.

They're not required to have a warrant for each detainee. ICE can detain someone for immigration violations as long as they have probable cause (just like you can be arrested without the cop having to go and get a judicial warrant). They generally will have administrative warrants in hand for people they know in advance they're going to detain.

They need a judicial warrant to enter a home. They don't need one to detain you.

https://www.aclunorcal.org/know-your-rights/know-y...

“ Why would they have to sue”

You misunderstand what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that state police and national guard units police ICE enforcement actions. Arrest those agents engaged in the violation of state rights to habeas corpus.

People should be encouraged to call police on ICE, and ICE agents should be subject to state laws.

You misunderstand what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that state police and national guard units police ICE enforcement actions. Arrest those agents engaged in the violation of state rights to habeas corpus.

How would that violate state rights to habeus corpus?

Habeus corpus is the right to have a judge review the conditions of your detention. It's a procedural guarantee. It's not the right to be free from detention in the first place.

And while ICE enforcement actions are obviously subject to after-the-fact judicial review (just like when the police arrest you), it's almost certain that virtually none of those agents are committing state crimes in effectuating those detentions. ICE agents have the right to detain people if they have either an administrative warrant or probable cause that they are in violation of immigration laws. State police and national guards don't have the right to second-guess those detention determinations on the fly. The people being detained have the right to challenge their detention, and undoubtedly some challenges will later be upheld - but that doesn't make the initial detention a crime committed by the federal agents.

This just doesn't work. State and local LEO's don't get to decide for themselves whether ICE has the right to detain someone.

And I think you're wrong about the late 1970's. Those folks were in the immediate aftermath of Watergate and ABSCAM - I doubt there's much going on today they would have thought impossible. At best unlikely, but certainly within the realm of possibility. Other than the Russia stuff.

I was there. I finished my Bachelor's degree in 77 and entered the full time workforce.

The difference was there were consequences for corruption by public officials. Agnew was forced out by his corrupt practices as Gov of Maryland. Nixon was forced out by his corrupt activities as POTUS. Jerry Ford might have won the election in 76, if he had not pardoned Nixon, but the people were in a surly mood and not going to tolerate that sort of whitewash. And, when he lost, Ford quietly left office, instead of having a hissy fit, and inciting a riot. Abscam rolled up seven corrupt members of Congress, as well as some state and local officials.

But corruption has been normalized. Ignoring democratic processes has been normalized. Ops like Abscam don't happen anymore. We joke about Trump's "ball room fund", "Trump Center remodel fund", and "Board of Peace" as "bribe laundering schemes" because it is so obvious that is what they are.

I mean, sure - they're grabbing mostly rules-compliant and otherwise law-abiding folks (the ones who voluntarily show up for hearings). But that's so much easier than going after violent criminals! It's just efficient!

You forgot the sarcasm tags. The point is, that those people are here *legally*, until they have had their legal due process wrt their asylum claim. Grabbing them as they show up for their hearing, is, in that sense, grabbing people who are here legally.

But that's not true at a polling place. There's little reason for people who are undocumented to go there. Even if you subscribe to conservative fever dreams about the undocumented voting in large numbers, they're pretty unlikely to do that via in-person election day voting, rather than other methods.

Trump has been on his campaign against "mail in voting" for years, to force people to line up at the polls. MAGA will love the visuals of brown people being yanked out of line at the polls. The fact that they will all be found to be US citizens, and released, after the polls close, will not matter to MAGA. The important thing, in their eyes, would be that they were prevented voting.

Steve

Police could arrest them for breaking and entering if they don’t show a judicial warrant when called by a resident to the scene of an illegal ICE enforcement action. Or, police called to the scene could arrest ICE officers for the malicious destruction of property if they break into a vehicle to extract a driver.

There are all sorts of ways the police can be used to police ICE. Defending habeas corpus can mean policing the violations of laws that enable the violation of habeas corpus. The only thing necessary is state political leadership willing to confront the federal abuse of power by deploying the instruments of power at its disposal.

Police could arrest them for breaking and entering if they don’t show a judicial warrant when called by a resident to the scene of an illegal ICE enforcement action.

Even with the drawdown announced today, ICE will still outnumber Minneapolis PD 4 to 1. Besides, you can't call 911, when storm troopers are beating you. Even if someone in your family calls a lawyer after you have been snatched, ICE has been ignoring Habeas orders.

Steve

The point is, that those people are here *legally*, until they have had their legal due process wrt their asylum claim. Grabbing them as they show up for their hearing, is, in that sense, grabbing people who are here legally.

True. But it's also perfectly legal to do that. Lawful, but awful. Filing a claim of asylum means you have a right to remain within the country, but it doesn't mean you have a right to be at liberty within the country. ICE is allowed to detain you until your claim is heard.

MAGA will love the visuals of brown people being yanked out of line at the polls. The fact that they will all be found to be US citizens, and released, after the polls close, will not matter to MAGA. The important thing, in their eyes, would be that they were prevented voting.

Perhaps, but they would hate what happened next when those elections got thrown out and the GOP lost seats because of it. By definition, any election that's close enough for this to be practical is a winnable election for the GOP. If you send federal agents to yank people out of line and not let them vote you're going to have the election invalidated (even people in jail are allowed to vote!), and you're going to end up getting crushed in the follow-up.

It doesn't matter whether MAGA will like the visuals or not. It's a fundamentally stupid move in a tight election. And even if MAGA likes watching those images, Trump's enormously saavy when it comes to TV and media impacts - and he's going to know that most people won't like seeing that on their TV screens over and over again. Witness Minnesota. Trump knows that what happened makes ICE look bad on TV. He knows it's bad to look bad on TV. Even if MAGA liked seeing some of those hippie AWFL protestors get what's coming to them, it's a bad look among everyone else.

Police could arrest them for breaking and entering if they don’t show a judicial warrant when called by a resident to the scene of an illegal ICE enforcement action. Or, police called to the scene could arrest ICE officers for the malicious destruction of property if they break into a vehicle to extract a driver.

They could, and then ICE could arrest them for forcibly interfering in their operations. And the state cops would probably lose, and ICE would probably win. Because the remedies against LEO's conducting a search or entry without a warrant almost never include criminal charges....and state cops should know that. The remedies if law enforcement goes too far in damaging property during an arrest/detention are also civil, not criminal. The remedies are not criminal, but post-search sanctions (typically striking the evidence obtained) and civil lawsuits under Section 1983.

It's a losing proposition. Most of what ICE is doing is awful but lawful, and even though I agree they are way across the line in using administrative warrants rather than judicial ones for entry they're going to have the DOJ on the record as saying it's a defensible position. In that contest between state authorities and ICE, it would be the state authorities that would be breaking the law.

Defending habeas corpus can mean policing the violations of laws that enable the violation of habeas corpus. The only thing necessary is state political leadership willing to confront the federal abuse of power by deploying the instruments of power at its disposal.

They don't have instruments of power to confront the federal abuse of power. The Supremacy Clause means that states can't interfere with federal agencies or their officers. States can refrain from using their own resources to enforce federal laws, but they cannot lawfully stop the federal government from using its own resources to do so. States can - and have - gone to federal court to seek judicial relief in civil suits when they believe the federal government has gone beyond their legal remit. But they do not have any legal justification to resort to self-help and start having their own LEO's arrest federal officials when there is a dispute over whether the federal government is following the law or not.

ICE is allowed to detain you until your claim is heard.

Is ICE waiting until after the hearing, or grabbing people on their way in to the courtroom? Is ICE preventing people being heard, denying them due process? If ICE grabs people, before they are heard, are they held until their hearing, or are they deported on the spot?

If you send federal agents to yank people out of line and not let them vote you're going to have the election invalidated (even people in jail are allowed to vote!), and you're going to end up getting crushed in the follow-up.

Who would prosecute? Trump's "Justice" Dept? Red state AGs? Keep the issue tied up in litigation for two years, and the election becomes moot.

Steve

Is ICE waiting until after the hearing, or grabbing people on their way in to the courtroom? Is ICE preventing people being heard, denying them due process? If ICE grabs people, before they are heard, are they held until their hearing, or are they deported on the spot?

Doesn't matter. If you're in the country without legal authorization, you're subject to detention at any time. ICE doesn't have to wait until you have your hearing. Particularly since it's almost certain that your hearing is over procedural matters stemming from your unauthorized presence in the country, which will be de facto probable cause for your detention.

Awful, but lawful.

Who would prosecute? Trump's "Justice" Dept? Red state AGs? Keep the issue tied up in litigation for two years, and the election becomes moot.

States. And the candidates. These wouldn't be criminal cases - they'd be civil lawsuits. Any losing candidate would have standing to bring a complaint that the removal of voters in the process of waiting to vote warrants overturning the election results. The individual voters would also have claims (though I don't know if they'd have standing to seek overturning the election).

The litigation wouldn't be tied up for two years. Election challenges are always handled expeditiously by the courts. An egregious violation like this probably would be resolved between the election and being seated for office - if not, it would be a few months, not two years.

Doesn't matter. If you're in the country without legal authorization, you're subject to detention at any time. ICE doesn't have to wait until you have your hearing. Particularly since it's almost certain that your hearing is over procedural matters stemming from your unauthorized presence in the country, which will be de facto probable cause for your detention.

I must not have made myself clear: the scenario is ICE grabbing and deporting someone, without the person in question having any hearing at all, totally denied legal due process.

The litigation wouldn't be tied up for two years. Election challenges are always handled expeditiously by the courts.

Indictments in Trump's election interference case in Georgia were issued in August 2023, nearly 3 years after the election, for "conspiracy to commit election fraud", among other issues. I don't see much daylight between what Trump did, and obstructing brown people's voting at the polls.

Steve

They don't need one to detain you.

Then THEY can be held because "something's wrong". They are held until the state says so.

I must not have made myself clear: the scenario is ICE grabbing and deporting someone, without the person in question having any hearing at all, totally denied legal due process.

Outside of certain expedited removal proceedings, they are not allowed to deport someone without them having at least one hearing. But they're allowed to grab someone without any hearing, just like you can be arrested without a hearing or a warrant, as long as the officer has probable cause.

Indictments in Trump's election interference case in Georgia were issued in August 2023, nearly 3 years after the election, for "conspiracy to commit election fraud", among other issues. I don't see much daylight between what Trump did, and obstructing brown people's voting at the polls.

Massive difference. Trump's case was a criminal indictment. The case in the scenario you describe would be a civil proceeding under election laws. Those election laws have enormously shortened time frames (for obvious reasons), and the courts nearly always expedite resolution of election law disputes when the identity of the winner is at issue.

it's almost certain that virtually none of those agents are committing state crimes in effectuating those detentions.

Kidnapping of US citizens by ICE would be a state crime.

Then THEY can be held because "something's wrong". They are held until the state says so.

They can't be held because "something's wrong."

ICE can detain you without a warrant if the detaining officer has probable cause to believe you are in violation of immigration law. Not because "something's wrong," but because they have sufficient basis for determining that there is probable cause that you're here illegally.

If a state officer has probable cause that an ICE agent has committed a crime, then they would be able to arrest them. But given the broad powers given to ICE agents as LEOs, I suspect that's going to be incredibly rare.

Kidnapping of US citizens by ICE would be a state crime.

Sure. But just like arresting someone almost always isn't kidnapping, even if it turns out later that the person shouldn't have been arrested, detaining U.S. citizens almost always isn't going to be kidnapping.

The important thing, in their eyes, would be that they were prevented voting.

They will not be prevented from voting. There is the MAGA problem.

As the voting booths don't close until the last voter has voted at each location, those taken from the line will STILL BE IN LINE TO VOTE--because THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THEY WERE IN LINE TO VOTE. So, the voting booths will remain open until they vote.

MAGA will be screaming and rending their clothing as they watch THOSE US CITIZENS VOTE.

just like you can be arrested without a hearing or a warrant, as long as the officer has probable cause.

And if you are walking in to the court for a hearing on your asylum claim, that provides probable cause that you are an illegal. Open and shut, except for not having "legal due process" before you are deported to El Salvador. Not being a law major, there is something I am not grasping about how punishment can be imposed, with "legal due process" completely denied. Of course, the Bush 43 junta insisted the Bill of Rights only applied to citizens.

Steve

And if you are walking in to the court for a hearing on your asylum claim, that provides probable cause that you are an illegal. Open and shut, except for not having "legal due process" before you are deported to El Salvador. Not being a law major, there is something I am not grasping about how punishment can be imposed, with "legal due process" completely denied.

They can't deport you without a hearing (certain exceptions not relevant here). They can detain you without a warrant.

So if you're walking into court for a hearing, they can take you into custody. If you have been detained wrongfully, you have the ability to request after-the-fact relief from being detained, if your detention was not lawful (just like you have a right to an arraignment and bond hearing and habeus corpus in the criminal arena). But you won't be given that hearing unless you are at least alleging that you have some right to be free from detention. And many (most) folks who are being detained simply don't. Just because ICE has previously let you walk around free during the pendency of your final hearing on your immigration status, that doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to change that and detain you.

As the voting booths don't close until the last voter has voted at each location, those taken from the line will STILL BE IN LINE TO VOTE--because THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THEY WERE IN LINE TO VOTE. So, the voting booths will remain open until they vote.

As luck would have it, I volunteered to work at a polling place, some years ago. The rule, at least in Michigan, is you need to be in line, at poll closing time, to vote. If the rule is the same in Ohio, then those hundreds of people I saw on the 11PM news in Toledo, in 2004. had been standing there since before 7:30. So, to prevent someone voting in person, they would only need to be held "for questioning" until after poll closing time, because it would be too late to get in line.

I lucked out. There was no line. We started breaking down some of the voting booths before closing time, and the doors were locked at 8pm on the dot.

Steve

If a state officer has probable cause that an ICE agent has committed a crime, then they would be able to arrest them.

State officer asks person being held: Are you a US citizen?

No: They go on their way.

Yes: ICE held for kidnapping a US citizen because ICE lacks the authority to arrest a US citizen for NOT being a US citizen.

State officer asks person being held: Are you a US citizen?

No: They go on their way.

Yes: ICE held for kidnapping a US citizen because ICE lacks the authority to arrest a US citizen for NOT being a US citizen.

No.

ICE can't be arrested for kidnapping a US citizen if they detain that person with probable cause to believe they are not a US citizen. Probable cause doesn't disappear simply because the individual claims (at the moment of their detention) to be a US citizen. If the state officer tries to "hold" the ICE officer for kidnapping, they are almost certainly going to be brought up on charges of forcibly interfering with a federal agent.

you need to be in line, at poll closing time, to vote

People forcibly removed from the line did NOT leave the line--they were forcibly removed without their permission or consent.

Guess what would happen if that happened to Spankee? LOL !!!

Apply the same logic.

If the state officer tries to "hold" the ICE officer for kidnapping, they are almost certainly going to be brought up on charges of forcibly interfering with a federal agent.

Great! Let it be so. Even tying up ICE in court cases the states are sure to lose is a victory since it demonstrates a willingness to resist the Magestapo and puts a (temporary) break on their abuse of constitutional rights.

All this ends in a fascist victory while Pollyanna politely waits for Clarence Thomas to save democracy, or it ends in a civil war. Trump only stops if he is stopped, and that takes action.

Great! Let it be so. Even tying up ICE in court cases the states are sure to lose is a victory since it demonstrates a willingness to resist the Magestapo and puts a (temporary) break on their abuse of constitutional rights.

It's not going to "tie up ICE in court cases." The prosecutions would be handled by other parts of the DOJ. ICE will still be doing what they do. To say nothing of the fact that it's pretty unlikely the police would ever do this...because they know that they don't have a leg to stand on. It wouldn't just be "states" that would lose - it would be individual officers facing a twenty year stretch in federal prison for forcibly obstructing a federal agent.

Trump only stops if he is stopped, and that takes action.

Sure. It just doesn't take this action. If you're afraid of incipient lawlessness on the part of the government, it seems a little contradictory to advocate for state officials to start violating the law. I mean, not only is that ideologically inconsistent - but you're just creating the conditions under which emergency powers might properly be invoked. If state officials start using force against federal agents without any legal justification to do so, that's a lot closer to the circumstances where emergency powers can be deployed than just protestors blowing whistles on the street.

There will undoubtedly be things that the Administration does that will affect voter behavior

Here's one. From the mouth of Steve Bannon.

"We're going to have ICE surround the polls."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDmw15Y4h94

He speaks those words about 27 seconds in to the video - as soon as the video moves from Chris Hays to the clip from Bannon. And they give Bannon about 30 seconds of air time. Beyond that is talking heads that can be skipped.

Yes, I know Bannon has no official position in the Administration. But he almost certainly has Trump's ear. And if he has Trump's ear, it is far beyond a remote possibility that Trump will attempt to do what Bannon says. Election administrators around the country need to be war gaming this possibility.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that there will be at least 2 different places where ICE will interfere in the upcoming mid-terms. I'll get even more specific. ICE will be around a couple of polling places in deep red areas in the primaries, where there is little chance of them being called out on their actions. That's the trial balloon. That's the practice run. That's getting people used to seeing ICE checking out people at polling places. Perhaps there will be some token opposition to generate a court case or two that sets a precedent in their favor - even if just in the district courts.

Then in the general election, they'll be at several polling places in democrat-majority areas. That will be the full press of the strategy. That's where Democracy writ large will be put to the test.

--Peter

Then in the general election, they'll be at several polling places in democrat-majority areas. That will be the full press of the strategy. That's where Democracy writ large will be put to the test.

That is about what I have been proposing. Even if the regime does not data mine the voter data they are demanding from the states, so they can "target" specific people in each precinct, just the knowledge that storm troopers, who have an established reputation for brutalizing Hispanic looking people, even if they are citizens, will be at the polls, may deter enough Hispanics from trying to vote, to tip some House and Senate seats.

Yes, I know Trump the God pulled a high 40s percentage of Hispanic votes in 24, but his actions since may be giving them pause.

Steve

“If you're afraid of incipient lawlessness on the part of the government, it seems a little contradictory to advocate for state officials to start violating the law.”

Arresting federal agents for violating state law is not lawlessness.

ProPublica has identified the murderers of Alex Pretti—Jesse Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez. Minnesota should be seeking their extradition for questioning about their potential involvement in the crime.

https://www.propublica.org/article/alex-pretti-sho...

Arresting federal agents for violating state law is not lawlessness.

True. And arrests in the killings of Good and Pretti might be appropriate.

But having state police arresting ICE agents for "kidnapping" or similar charges, just to send a message or demonstrate resistance, would be lawlessness. Much of what ICE is doing is awful, but lawful. The areas where they are violating laws are civil violations of the rights of the people they're mistreating, and almost always come after the arrest/detention.

Having the police/national guard intervene to try to stop ICE from conducting their detention activities would be unlawful. The states do not have the legitimate power to do that. They (and the people being detained) have every right to seek after-the-fact relief from ICE detention that doesn't comply with the formalities of the law, just like people who are arrested in the criminal system have the right to challenge the sufficiency of warrants or probable cause. But an LEO who arrests/detains someone and is later found to not have had the legal right to do that is almost never actually committing a crime, and state law enforcement knows that.

Any federal agents unlawfully arrested by state authorities will have HUGE lawsuit payouts available to them.

The states or municipalities would have to settle, couldn't afford to go to trial, because the motivation isn't to legitimately enforce state law, but rather, to obstruct the enforcement of federal law.

The states or municipalities would have to settle

Why? Give each wanna-be plaintiff the "Pretti-Good" treatment. No more plaintiff, suicide.

Sound FAMILIAR ???

“But having state police arresting ICE agents for "kidnapping" or similar charges, just to send a message or demonstrate resistance, would be lawlessness. Much of what ICE is doing is awful, but lawful.”

I believe I said that state and local police should respond to 912 calls the people when they are being harassed by ICE. If ICE are found to have engaged in breaking and entering without a judicial warrant they should be arrested for that crime. Same for malicious damage to a vehicle in an unwarranted search and seizure.

https://www.propublica.org/article/why-local-state...

If ICE are found to have engaged in breaking and entering without a judicial warrant they should be arrested for that crime. Same for malicious damage to a vehicle in an unwarranted search and seizure.

But neither of those things is credibly a crime. Police and law enforcement frequently are found by the courts to have exceeded their authority under the 4th Amendment to conduct searches and seizures. That doesn't convert their actions into a B&E or kidnapping. It might give rise to a civil claim against the governmental body (most commonly a Section 1983 action). It might give rise to the arrest being vacated, or the results of the search being excluded from evidence. But it's not a crime committed by the officers.

If Minnesota (or any other state) went to a state judge after one of these detentions and tried to get an arrest warrant for an ICE officer for these charges, they'd almost certainly get laughed out of court. At best, they might get respectfully tossed out of court. They could theoretically try to empanel a grand jury to bring the charges, and maybe a group of sufficiently outraged citizens might issue the indictment - but it wouldn't withstand its first contact with a judge.

You could certainly make a case for possibly indicting a federal officer who shoots someone in circumstances where deadly force is prohibited. Shooting a guy ten times while he's lying face down on the ground, unarmed, in the back is ripe for a possible criminal charge. But for entering a home in connection with conducting a law enforcement function? Even if it's later found to be unwarranted (literally)? That's not a crime, and the state knows it.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPos5UJDvh6/?igsh=a...

Local police could protect the people by enforcing the law. A clearly illegal ICE vehicle is being protected by Chicago police.

We need leaders willing to fight for the people rather that protecting the magastapo.

Local police could protect the people by enforcing the law. A clearly illegal ICE vehicle is being protected by Chicago police.

We need leaders willing to fight for the people rather that protecting the magastapo.

True - the Minnesota police could, in theory, issue a traffic citation to that vehicle. Then, in due course, it would go through the normal process for traffic violations and end up in traffic court. Where a judge could in theory revoke the vehicle registration or issue some other ordinary traffic violation enforcement sanction. Which ICE could probably either ignore under the Supremacy Clause, or appeal under the Supremacy Clause. Because there's no way a traffic court judge is equipped to weigh a constitutional argument over the Supremacy Clause.

This would result in a rather significant allocation of police resources to a relatively useless and meaningless endeavor that has virtually zero chance of having any effect - even a trivial one - on ICE and its operations.

Which is why they don't do it. Those police are there to do things that are somewhat more important than writing traffic citations, and there's no reason whatsoever to go down that road with ICE car by car.

What the county could do is seek an injunction in federal court against ICE prohibiting them from obscuring or removing license plates. That would square up the issue fairly well, and in a court that could grant that relief. If they haven't done that, the most likely reason is that they don't think they have much of a case. Again, the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government a lot of leeway to ignore state laws in the conduct of their federal activities.

https://archive.is/Ifsdm

This would result in a rather significant allocation of police resources to a relatively useless and meaningless endeavor that has virtually zero chance of having any effect - even a trivial one - on ICE and its operations.

Says you. One, that ICE operation would be halted for the day. Two, the names of ICE officers involved would be part of the public record. Three, failure to appear could result in the agent’s license being revoked. Four, agents would learn that failure to obey state and local law impedes their ability to meet quotas. Five, state and local law enforcement would do more to improve community relations and standing than decades of efforts have achieved.

“To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.”

This would result in a rather significant allocation of police resources to a relatively useless and meaningless endeavor

Maybe, probably, but...

A lot of cities this size have a separate traffic enforcement section apart from regular police (the old "meter maid" force). My own, which is about half the size of Minneapolis, has one. This would not be an especially onerous task on them since they are doing it anyway. It may end up being "useless" in the end as far as fines go, but it might have a little sting here or there.

Pete

Says you. One, that ICE operation would be halted for the day. Two, the names of ICE officers involved would be part of the public record. Three, failure to appear could result in the agent’s license being revoked. Four, agents would learn that failure to obey state and local law impedes their ability to meet quotas. Five, state and local law enforcement would do more to improve community relations and standing than decades of efforts have achieved.

Why would any of that happen? Ticketing the vehicle doesn't cause the ICE operation to be halted for the day. It doesn't make the ICE officers part of the public record - they would just ignore the ticket. Failure to appear wouldn't cause the driver's license to be revoked. Etc. Because they're probably allowed to do this!

Here's the key thing about that video. It's something critical that the incensed person in the video didn't raise, and neither did you. Which is this - the obscuring of the license plate in that vehicle is the least significant violation of Illinois' motor vehicle regulations. The far more significant violation? The truck is parked in the middle of the center lane of the street!.

Think about it. That is also a major violation of Illinois law. It's a far more serious one. It's the violation that would get a normal person's car towed, and one that theoretically might even get someone arrested. You can't park your car in the middle of the center lane of traffic.

But the video maker didn't even think to complain about it. Didn't mention it. Why? I think because he knows, implicitly, that state laws can't force a federal agent to drive around the block looking for a parking space in order to go and arrest or detain someone.

Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws generally can't limit federal officials in the way they choose to go about doing their duties. The states simply can't regulate that. I run into that from time to time in my zoning and land use practice when dealing with federal buildings. They're allowed to simply ignore state zoning laws, building codes, fire codes - whatever they want to ignore. If they want to build a post office garage in the middle of a residential neighborhood, they can.

That applies to traffic laws as well. They're allowed to ignore traffic laws in the conduct of their duty. That's why post office vehicles don't have license plates at all. That's why the truck was able to park in the middle of the street without being towed. And it's probably why they're allowed to obscure the license plates. One of the stated reasons why the ICE monitors do what they do is not merely to make ICE accountable, but to try to make performance of their job a little more difficult by giving warnings and alerts in advance of ICE folks getting to an area. That's legal for the protestors to do. But it also provides ICE a pretty unshakeable argument that measures that they take to make their agents harder to identify and track will help them perform their jobs.

So, no. There's no conceivable scenario in which placing a traffic ticket on that vehicle for having obscured plates will have any impact on ICE, any more than if they put a ticket on it for illegally parking in the middle of the street. ICE would just ignore it. If the country tried to enforce it, ICE would continue to ignore it. If the county escalated it to any point beyond traffic court, ICE would go to federal court and the court would tell the county to knock it off, because under the Supremacy Clause ICE doesn't have to follow routine traffic rules in conducting it's operations.

A lot of cities this size have a separate traffic enforcement section apart from regular police (the old "meter maid" force). My own, which is about half the size of Minneapolis, has one. This would not be an especially onerous task on them since they are doing it anyway. It may end up being "useless" in the end as far as fines go, but it might have a little sting here or there.

Sure, but there probably weren't any "meter maid" cops there. Those looked like regular Chicago PD cops.

As noted in the prior thread, this would have zero sting. The federal government doesn't have to follow state or local laws in the conduct of its official business. Federal agents are subject to state law when they're not actually performing federal governmental functions (ie. they have to follow traffic laws on the way to work), but state laws cannot limit or impede those folks from actually performing their duties. The Supremacy Clause isn't limited to just statutory conflicts between state and federal law - states can't impede or restrict how federal officials perform their official duties within the states.

Again, I've run into this a bunch of times in my zoning and land use practice dealing with federal buildings. Basically, a federal building can ignore virtually every state and local regulation - they don't have to follow zoning, building codes, fire codes, any of that. They sometimes do, of course. They like to maintain good relations with local government, and if the building is ever going to be sold out of federal use and ownership it's helpful if it complies with as much of the local code as possible (the next user will have to comply). But they don't have to, and you'll often see federal buildings that have features that don't meet setback or signage rules.

So there's literally nothing that sticking a ticket on that truck would do to ICE - either for the plate or for the illegal parking. It would certainly be more of an inconvenience to the city police than to ICE.

The federal government doesn't have to follow state or local laws in the conduct of its official business. Federal agents are subject to state law when they're not actually performing federal governmental functions (ie. they have to follow traffic laws on the way to work), but state laws cannot limit or impede those folks from actually performing their duties. The Supremacy Clause isn't limited to just statutory conflicts between state and federal law - states can't impede or restrict how federal officials perform their official duties within the states.

Again, I've run into this a bunch of times in my zoning and land use practice dealing with federal buildings. Basically, a federal building can ignore virtually every state and local regulation - they don't have to follow zoning, building codes, fire codes, any of that.

That's interesting. So if earthquake standards are updated requiring pillars in underground parking garages be wrapped in steel to help prevent damage and collapse, the Federal Building doesn't have to comply?

Let's say ICE wants to drive across someone's property to get surprise access for a potential immigrant site and it's chained off. they can break the chain and drive across the lawn in civilian cars with no problem? Are they responsible for damage?

These may be cumbersome so if you want to direct me where to read, I'm happy. :)

That's interesting. So if earthquake standards are updated requiring pillars in underground parking garages be wrapped in steel to help prevent damage and collapse, the Federal Building doesn't have to comply?

Yes! Here's the federal district court case, holding that the USPS (as a federal agency) does not have to pull building permits or comply with building codes when building their buildings:

For these reasons, the Court grants the Postal Service's Motion for Summary Judgment and declares that the Town may not impose the state building code or the building permit fee schedule on the Postal Service in connection with the West Putnam Station.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-cour...(general%20duties%20of,Court%20has%20consistently%20held%20that:

Let's say ICE wants to drive across someone's property to get surprise access for a potential immigrant site and it's chained off. they can break the chain and drive across the lawn in civilian cars with no problem?

Yes! Here's another federal district court case, holding that a city cannot use trespass laws to prevent postal workers from walking across people's lawns in order to make their postal deliver routes more convenient:

Thus the issue here is not whether Congress has manifested an intent to preempt the subject matter of the Pittsburg ordinance and oust local regulation. The issue is whether that ordinance intrudes into and interferes with activities of the federal government conducted in pursuance of its Constitutional power to operate the postal system. That it does so cannot be doubted. Here, as in Johnson, the federal government has asserted certain authority to implement *1087 the postal power, i. e., the authority to insure the expeditious delivery of mail by, among other things, requiring carriers to cross lawns in appropriate circumstances. And here, as in Johnson, local action threatens to interrupt the federal government's exercise of its authority, i. e., precluding the Service from directing carriers under any circumstances to cross lawns.[9]

It may well be, as defendant suggests, that trespass regulations are a customary and unquestioned exercise of the police power but, as Justice Holmes analogized, "even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States. In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55." 254 U.S. at 56-57, 41 S. Ct. at 16.[10]

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-cour...


In this vein, the federal courts have also ruled that post office drivers don't have to have a state driver's license. And, as noted above, these cases (and others) are why post office vehicles don't have license plates altogether, much less partially obscured ones. Because the states can't make them have one.


* * * *

There is an irony in what PhoolishPhilip is suggesting. As a general matter, federal officials can be required to follow state laws. But it's when following the state law is merely an incidental or de minimis burden on them performing their federal duties.

IOW, the states can only apply their regulations if it won't stop the federal government from doing what it wants to do.

The Supremacy Clause means that the states can't use their power to push back on the federal government. By definition, if what the states are doing is meaningful in impeding the federal government, it's barred by the Supremacy Clause. They can only exercise state power if the state power won't interfere with what the feds want to do.

“Why would any of that happen? Ticketing the vehicle doesn't cause the ICE operation to be halted for the day. It doesn't make the ICE officers part of the public record - they would just ignore the ticket. Failure to appear wouldn't cause the driver's license to be revoked. Etc. Because they're probably allowed to do this!

Here's the key thing about that video. It's something critical that the incensed person in the video didn't raise, and neither did you. Which is this - the obscuring of the license plate in that vehicle is the least significant violation of Illinois' motor vehicle regulations. The far more significant violation? The truck is parked in the middle of the center lane of the street!.

... It's a far more serious one. It's the violation that would get a normal person's car towed, and one that theoretically might even get someone arrested.”

Well swung hammer sir.

At least we are in agreement that there are serious enforcement actions that local police could pursue against ICE.

At least we are in agreement that there are serious enforcement actions that local police could pursue against ICE.

No, we're not. Any "serious" enforcement actions that local police could pursue against ICE would be blocked by the Supremacy Clause.

States are simply not allowed to use their police power to interfere with or impede federal agencies pursuing their federal objectives. The Supremacy Clause prevents that. It doesn't matter if the state is using general, near-universal rules like building codes or driver's licenses or prohibitions against trespass or having to get a building permit or even having a license plate. The moment those rules run up against what the federal government is trying to do in implementing a federal program or objective, the rules give way.

As I noted downthread, the irony is that states are only allowed to ask the federal government to follow state law when doing so won't get in the way of what they're doing.

There's nothing they can do, PhoolishPhilip. State power cannot be used to block federal power. States have the ability to go to court to stop ICE from doing stuff that's outside the scope of their authority or that violate federal laws. But they can't use their own laws to restrain the exercise of federal power.

because under the Supremacy Clause ICE doesn't have to follow routine traffic rules in conducting it's operations.

Disable or destroy the vehicle for impeding/blocking emergency vehicles. Spankee gets pissed really fast when he has to keep ordering hundreds/thousands of NEW vehicles to replace ones ICE/CBP destroyed due to their negligence and/or incompetence.

Disable or destroy the vehicle for impeding/blocking emergency vehicles. Spankee gets pissed really fast when he has to keep ordering hundreds/thousands of NEW vehicles to replace ones ICE/CBP destroyed due to their negligence and/or incompetence.

Not legal advice, but if anyone tried to disable or destroy the vehicle, they'd likely face a twenty-year stretch in federal prison. You can't do that. That would likely be forcibly interfering with a federal agent in the conduct of their duties. Which again, is punishable by up to twenty years. Plus, there's a non-trivial chance that ICE would use force to stop you from disabling or destroying the vehicle.

So you probably shouldn't do that.

By definition, if what the states are doing is meaningful in impeding the federal government, it's barred by the Supremacy Clause.

But isn’t that true only if the federal government is doing one of its constitutionally enumerated things? So if we switch the discussion from immigration enforcement to running elections, we should get a different result. Immigration is something the states delegated to the federal government in the constitution. So that is protected by the supremacy clause. But registering voters was not delegated. So can’t states can do a lot more in that area to push back in that area? The federal government has no authority in voting, so if the feds are trying to enforce something, the states are far more free to interfere with federal agents.

—Peter

—Peter

“No, we're not. Any "serious" enforcement actions that local police could pursue against ICE would be blocked by the Supremacy Clause.”

God I love this hamster wheel. LET THE FEDS SUE!

https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-ice-agents-...

You can sit on your hands, or you can fight.

But registering voters was not delegated. So can’t states can do a lot more in that area to push back in that area? The federal government has no authority in voting, so if the feds are trying to enforce something, the states are far more free to interfere with federal agents.

Well, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the Motor Voter Act) might beg to differ with you. The Elections Clause, as well as the various voting rights clauses of the Constitution, open the door to federal participation in the rules governing elections. They can't "nationalize" the elections, in the sense that the elections are to be run by the states, but they can certainly adopt some rules regarding them. So the NVRA contains a lot of rules requiring states to afford certain avenues to register to vote, and those rules were upheld as constitutional a few years after they were adopted.

That doesn't mean that there aren't lines that cabin how far the federal government can go, of course. But even if (or when) the Administration crosses those lines, the remedy will be for states to go into federal court to argue that the government is outside their authority. Not for individual police officers or national guardsmen to start using force to physically prevent their federal counterparts from doing something.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Regis...
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/wi...

God I love this hamster wheel. LET THE FEDS SUE!

They're not going to need to sue.

You'll notice in that article that the police commissioner didn't identify any specific laws that were being broken - or expected to be broken - by the feds. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone in Philadelphia actually arrested someone from ICE. Which makes sense, in some ways - neither of the two people making those speeches is in charge of the Philadelphia police department (the Philly Sheriff's office is different from the PD).

The folks making those speeches are doing exactly that - making speeches. They're not "fighting." They're not doing anything. They're saying that "if" federal agents commit crimes in Philly they'll be arrested and indicted.

But that doesn't address the issues we're talking about. Almost everything ICE is doing is awful but lawful, and in the instances where they're crossing state laws they won't be committing any crimes, because the Supremacy Clause permits them to ignore state laws. The DA can pontificate all he wants, but he's going to have a hard time getting an arrest warrant (much less an indictment) against a federal agent for nearly all of what ICE is doing.

Certainly what they did to Pretti can be prosecuted. They might not win, but when federal officials are shooting a face-down prone unarmed man in the back, that would be a defensible arrest and indictment. But all the other stuff that happens in the course of these detentions? Not bloody likely.

It's not a hamster wheel. It's the law. The federal government has power over immigration and immigration enforcement, and the states don't get to interfere with how they do it. If they try, they'll lose in court. If they try outside of court, the individuals that do it risk facing years in federal prison - and the very real likelihood that ICE will be able to legitimately be able to use force to stop them.

ICE isn't going to sue. If a cop tries to put cuffs on them in the course of a detention, they'll subdue the cop and haul him off to federal custody to face prosecution and possibly a decade in the federal penitentiary. And I bet the Philly police commissioner knows that, which is why the Philly PD issued a separate statement in response to those speeches clarifying the difference between the Sheriff's Office and the PD. Because the Philly police commissioner almost certainly isn't going to put his officers in that position.

Thanks Albaby, that helped me understand. That case In re Neagle was an interesting read and applies to the Renee Good case, unfortunately. I've come to believe that it's highly likely the agent set up the situation to give him plausible cover so he could kill Good, and that the cover is good and he'll get off. :(

highly likely the agent set up the situation to give him plausible cover - Lambo

---------------

Premeditated? C'mon. The loony speculation has no bounds...

You can't do that.

Unmarked vehicle, maybe no license plates (STOLEN?), left running in the middle of the street--ABANDONED? CRIMINALS?

Destroyed = no longer blocking street. Criminals need to find new vehicle. You find them first--THEIR problem. You do NOT know they are anything BUT criminals. Treat as such. If they want to play tuff-boy, then kill them and let the local cops deal with the bodies.

Not local vigilantes. ICE/CBP failed to do their job--and it got them killed.

Pretti-Good justice.

Unmarked vehicle, maybe no license plates (STOLEN?), left running in the middle of the street--ABANDONED? CRIMINALS?

Nope. Highly unlikely you would be able to plausibly convince a jury that you actually thought this was an abandoned car, possibly by criminals.

You find them first--THEIR problem. You do NOT know they are anything BUT criminals. Treat as such. If they want to play tuff-boy, then kill them and let the local cops deal with the bodies.

I think you have a wildly inaccurate expectation of how that particular confrontation would go down. If you tried to get into a physical confrontation with a bunch of ICE agents, I don't think it's likely that it would be their bodies the local cops would have to deal with. Remember, these are heavily armed law enforcement folks who are trying to bring someone into custody/detention - and that they have to approached under the assumption that they might have access to a weapon.

Premeditated? C'mon. The loony speculation has no bounds...

Until it happens to you and/or your family.

Well, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the Motor Voter Act) might beg to differ with you.

I'd argue it agrees with me. Or it would if I would state my position better. Let me try again.

Yes, the Feds have some ability to draw lines around what the states do in elections and voter registration. States can do this and can't do that. (for a few defined thiss and thats.) But the Feds don't actually do the work of elections. That is still up to the states. If a state is doing something that violates a federal election law, the Feds have to go to court. They don't simply get to step in and impose a fix.

Administration officials have threatened to send ICE officers to oversee elections and look for undocumented persons. If there are non-citizens voting or attempting to vote (which, from my understanding, there are vanishingly few), the Feds need to bring their evidence to court. If the problem were wide-spread enough (which, again, it almost certainly isn't), the courts could then give the Feds some more direct ability to oversee elections in that problematic area, perhaps a county or two. Or can they actually proactively intervene in an election without a court order?

If I were a county or state election official, and wanted to be proactive, I'd be tempted to go to federal court and ask for an injunction against the federal government. I'd show that there were credible threats to election integrity in my jurisdiction (enter into the record those statements from administration officials). I'd show the procedures followed in my jurisdiction to make sure only citizens are registered and voting, and the results of audits of those procedures. Then I'd point out the potential voter suppression that could happen if Federal agents were to be visibly present around polling places. And rather than go it alone, I'd get in touch with election officials around the country and perhaps band together in this ask for an injunction.

Because waiting until after ICE has started harassing people waiting in line to vote is too late. The courts may try, but there will be no actual fix for the voter suppression that would happen in that setting. Even invalidating election results and re-doing the election isn't the same as doing it right in the first place. Those who were intimidated in the invalidated election would have little incentive to risk intimidation again in a re-do of the election.

--Peter

I think you have a wildly inaccurate expectation of how that particular confrontation would go down. If you tried to get into a physical confrontation with a bunch of ICE agents, I don't think it's likely that it would be their bodies the local cops would have to deal with. Remember, these are heavily armed law enforcement folks who are trying to bring someone into custody/detention - and that they have to approached under the assumption that they might have access to a weapon.

I dunno. That description fits most local police these days. Body armor. Heavily armed. Seems like a pretty even fight, to be honest. There would be losses on both sides. And there is some question about the training of ICE/CBP officers lately. They've put thousands of new officers on the streets in the last few months. Training is said to be minimal just to get more bodies on the street. The local officers may actually be better trained and disciplined.

--Peter

Administration officials have threatened to send ICE officers to oversee elections and look for undocumented persons. If there are non-citizens voting or attempting to vote (which, from my understanding, there are vanishingly few), the Feds need to bring their evidence to court. If the problem were wide-spread enough (which, again, it almost certainly isn't), the courts could then give the Feds some more direct ability to oversee elections in that problematic area, perhaps a county or two. Or can they actually proactively intervene in an election without a court order?

It depends on what you mean by "proactively intervene" in an election. The federal government is allowed to take any and all lawful actions it chooses to take, even when those actions have an effect on elections. To use an obvious example, the federal government used to constantly review state election procedures and tell the states whether they were permissible or not under the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance process. That is clearly "proactively intervening" in an election, but was equally clearly permissible (even the SCOTUS decision in Shelby didn't say this exceeded federal authority, just that the formulae were outdated to a constitutionally impermissible degree). The feds don't get to run elections, but they get to adopt and enforce rules on how that election is conducted.

That power extends to monitoring voting places. For example, in the 2022 midterms, the Biden Administration's DOJ sent election monitors to polling places in 24 states to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-de...

Which makes sense - the federal government's power to regulate compliance with voting rights regulations would necessarily include the power to have people present at polling places to ensure those regulations were complied with. Those were federal officials present in numerous polling places, and from the description of their role I would suspect that those agents would be highly visible.

The question whether the feds powers to regulate immigration and conduct immigration enforcement allow it to take actions that would affect an election is obviously much more complicated. The nexus between the power to enforce immigration laws and Election Day is much more tenuous. I agree with you that states that want to make sure that doesn't happen should probably try to get an injunction ahead of time, but I'm not certain they would be successful.

I dunno. That description fits most local police these days. Body armor. Heavily armed. Seems like a pretty even fight, to be honest. There would be losses on both sides. And there is some question about the training of ICE/CBP officers lately. They've put thousands of new officers on the streets in the last few months. Training is said to be minimal just to get more bodies on the street. The local officers may actually be better trained and disciplined.

Wait - you mean he was suggesting that the police would do this? That the police would respond to a motor vehicle without plates on the road by...destroying it? That the police would gun down a group of ICE agents wearing their own body armor that says "ICE" and "Police" on them, claiming they thought those guys were criminals? Again, seems extremely far-fetched - particularly since the ICE folks are going to recognize the police folks and identify themselves as law enforcement as well.

https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/02/05/ice-operat...

You can sit on your hands, or you can fight.

The best way to fight is not to. Consider yourself a videographer who wants to catch the ICE in its natural setting, undisturbed by protestors, feeding in its natural habitat. Let it kick the puppy, shoot the cat, rip off the door, tear the baby from its mother's arms, fondle the 13 year old, beat the fellow down the hall, catch it all on your camera/phone, and just before they shoot you, toss your phone to a fellow videographer.

Premeditated? C'mon. The loony speculation has no bounds...

Well, the video Ross shot shows he was holding his phone in his right hand, all the time he walked down the driver's side, around the back, and up the passenger side of Good's car. He can be see switching the phone to his left hand, freeing his gun hand, just before he crosses in front of the car.

Steve

Wait - you mean he was suggesting that the police would do this?

That's the way I read it. If he's talking about a vigilante group, that's a non-starter everywhere.

Although, for the record, most of the equipment to be on par with police forces is readily available to civilians. And if you catch the police outside of their car without their rifles, it's not hard to out gun them, if you can pin them down and keep them away. Of course, that only lasts as long as it takes backup to arrive, 'cause that backup will be fully armed as they get out of their vehicles.

--Peter

No, we're not. Any "serious" enforcement actions that local police could pursue against ICE would be blocked by the Supremacy Clause.

Assault and battery? Murder? That is protected by the supremacy clause?

Assault and battery? Murder? That is protected by the supremacy clause?

Yep. One of the earliest and most important cases on the Supremacy Clause was actually a murder charge. In re: Neagle. Landmark case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Neagle

U.S. marshall killed a man while the marshall was serving as the bodyguard for a SCOTUS Justice. State arrested the marshall to bring him up on murder charges. The Court said, "nope - man was just doing his job as directed by the President, and the state cannot restrict him from doing so."

Under the provisions of Rev.Stat. § 788, it is the duty of marshals and their deputies in each State to exercise, in keeping the peace of the United States, the powers given to the sheriffs of the State for keeping the peace of the State; aud a deputy marshal of the United States, specially charged with the duty of protecting and guarding a judge of a court of the United States, has imposed upon him the duty of doing whatever may be necessary for that purpose, even to the taking of human life.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/

Surprising, right? But that's the jurisprudence on the Supremacy Clause. It's not just a question of who gets to write statutes. All of the organs of federal government - the agencies and their personnel - are beyond the ability of States to regulate. Even with laws that apply to everyone and aren't at all intended to single out federal power, like building codes or license plate requirements - or penal codes prohibiting murder.

The main reason that a murder charge might be able to avoid the Supremacy Clause for the killing of Pretti and Good is if the courts determine they were acting outside of what was part of their federal duties.

I get the sense, though, that PhoolishPhilip is suggesting that states can use their power to push back on ICE in far less extreme circumstances. That they can use state law to stop ICE from conducting their raids in ways or using methods that are contrary to state law, even to the point of enforcing ordinary traffic laws against them in an effort to impede them somehow.

That's not going to fly. The operation of federal authority and the conduct of federal operations cannot be limited by state laws. If something doesn't involve federal authority or federal operations, or the state law doesn't limit them in any way, then the federal officials can be required to follow state law. But trying to use state law to slow down, impede, restrict, or resist the federal government doing something that involves federal authority or federal operations is just not going to work.

Surprising, right?

Very.

I get the bodyguard angle. That would apply to Secret Service, as well. But you're saying the ICE agents can slay anyone they like without any personal repercussions. That is not only surprising, it's a bit scary. And they can be tried at the federal level because murder isn't not against federal law.

Local law enforcement officers have shooting reviews. There should be at least that minimum standard for federal officers, too.

highly likely the agent set up the situation to give him plausible cover - Lambo

---------------

bmh: Premeditated? C'mon. The loony speculation has no bounds...

Mike, I've said this before. It's speculation, but it isn't loony. There were articles citing reports that came out at the time showing the CPB would set themselves in front of a traveling car so they could shoot at it since it was policy not to. Did you even read the link to the report that was cited? I don't think you did or you wouldn't be saying loony.

If there's a report that says this was a practice while he was in the CPB, what do you think the odds are he heard about it? Highly likely right? So deal with it Mike. It's speculative, but not loony at all.

there is some question about the training of ICE/CBP officers lately. They've put thousands of new officers on the streets in the last few months. Training is said to be minimal just to get more bodies on the street. The local officers may actually be better trained and disciplined.

They will take anyone without even following their vetting process.

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/14/laura_jedee...

But you're saying the ICE agents can slay anyone they like without any personal repercussions

No. He's saying at the federal level they determined there was not a murder, that the Federal officer was determined to be operating within his assigned duties to protect the judge. The shooting was proper.

But you're saying the ICE agents can slay anyone they like without any personal repercussions.

No. As pointed out upthread, they can't slay anyone they like. Rather, state laws - even murder laws - can't stop them from carrying out their duties. If their duties require them to slay someone, the state law can't restrain them.

That doesn't mean an ICE agent can go find their ex-wife and shoot her for personal reasons. That's not part of the exercise of their duties. It also means that state law can apply in circumstances when it wouldn't stop the officials from fulfilling the duties of their office. So a state law that says that it's murder if you shoot a prone, unarmed man in the back ten times is probably one that the courts would hold does not conflict with federal agents fulfilling their objectives.

But it does mean that you can't use state law to to make it harder for ICE to perform their functions the way Philip was suggesting. If the rule actually limits their ability to do these raids in any material way, then the rule has to give way to the federal objective.

But it does mean that you can't use state law to to make it harder for ICE to perform their functions the way Philip was suggesting. If the rule actually limits their ability to do these raids in any material way, then the rule has to give way to the federal objective.

The only way to know if a federal agent is executing their duties when killing an unarmed person is to arrest them for the crime and take them to court. You are suggesting that the very questioning of the act as murder or duty is beyond state adjudication as it has ALREADY been adjudicated under the supremacy clause. You have preempted action by declaring state authority to investigate potentially criminal federal behavior as constitutionally prohibited. Only the Feds can decide to investigate crimes committed by federal agents.

As a lawyer who believes in the wheels of justice, why preemptively preclude those wheels from being put in motion?

Let states execute their laws through effective law enforcement, and let the courts determine the constitutionality of that law enforcement activity.

The only way to know if a federal agent is executing their duties when killing an unarmed person is to arrest them for the crime and take them to court. You are suggesting that the very questioning of the act as murder or duty is beyond state adjudication as it has ALREADY been adjudicated under the supremacy clause. You have preempted action by declaring state authority to investigate potentially criminal federal behavior as constitutionally prohibited. Only the Feds can decide to investigate crimes committed by federal agents.

As a lawyer who believes in the wheels of justice, why preemptively preclude those wheels from being put in motion?

I'm not. I think you are conflating the killing of Pretti (which absolutely can be subject to state law enforcement) with my discussion of the truck parked in the middle of the street (which absolutely cannot).

So for Pretti's killing, and probably Good's, there is a colorable argument that the agents were outside of what was necessary to perform the objectives of their federal agencies. Immigration enforcement is not in any way impeded - at all - by not having the ability to shoot an unarmed man lying prone on the ground. Contrast that with the requirement that vehicles have to be parked in a proper space and can't be left in the street, which is something that does make it marginally harder for law enforcement to quickly do what they need to do - which is why police and emergency services and other government folks frequently do park in the street rather than trying to find a space.

State law can be used to punish agents who break it to do things wholly irrelevant to performing their official duties. But because it can only be used for punishing unlawful acts wholly irrelevant to performing their official duties, it obviously won't have any impeding effect on the official duties. You can't use it to resist what ICE is doing - only when the agents are stepping outside of what ICE is doing, and effectively doing their own thing.

That's why it's a waste of resources for the state to try to engage in those futile acts, and its unreasonable for people who want pushback against ICE to look to that as a method for doing so. Not only is it a waste of time and political resources, it's actually self-defeating - because you're basically calling for the state to take actions that it knows it's not allowed to take. States aren't allowed to interfere with federal agencies. They know this, the courts know this, and the political folks on both sides know this. It's not helpful to act as if states have this power, because they don't - and pretending that they do is not only a distraction of resources from things that can be done (like arguing in court that ICE is violating the federal requirements that it has to comply with), but it also plays into the very arguments that conservatives have been making that progressives want to see the law broken.

The only way to know if a federal agent is executing their duties when killing an unarmed person is to arrest them for the crime and take them to court.

Now I understand what you’re saying. It’s basically the same playbook Trump is using. Do what you please until the courts say no.

You are encouraging Minnesota to do that in the Good and Pretti cases. Arrest the Federal agents and let the courts decide if they were operating within the bounds of their duties. Don’t just assume they were.

—Peter

That doesn't mean an ICE agent can go find their ex-wife and shoot her for personal reasons.

Sure. But if he claims it was in performance of his duties, he can get away with it. Evidently. ("I thought her housekeeper was illegal, so I shot her when she told me I couldn't come inside.")

I understand the supremacy clause (or it's purpose, at least). But this seems to rely heavily on "reasonable" government and "norms". When those aren't in play, everyone is a potential victim of the government. Even you or me.

I agree that Philip's idea probably won't work. The only other solution I can see is to have the national guard meet ICE and the airport, and refuse to let them deplane. Probably not legal, either. But at least ICE can't get on the ground and start randomly killing people, which is what they're doing (at least sometimes).

BTW, Legal Eagle didn't do a thorough analysis (yet), but has stated that ICE should not be armed. They are not LEOs. He said "it's like arming postal workers".

Would you agree with that?

They should not be doing crowd control, either (which makes sense to me).

randomly killing people,

----------------

When I see stuff like this, I have to assume you are just stirring the pot and can't possibly believe it is factually true. Even the two questionable deaths were not random. If truly random, why only two so far?

Others on your side are arguing who would prevail in a shoot out, ICE vs LEO's. Others are wishing with all their heart that LEO's start arresting federal agents or preventing them from deplaning. Despite albaby's patient explanations you exhibit all the stubbornness you accuse Dope of when you continue to apply TDS logic to interpret the Supremacy clause or denying Trumps ultimate adherence to court orders. You fail to notice that most of the rancor occurs in sanctuary cities? Is that because all the other mayors and governors are OK with ICE randomly shooting their citizens? You lost an election.... get over it. and maybe try to understand the issues that got Trump elected as opposed to just condemning his way of dealing with them.

Others on your side are arguing who would prevail in a shoot out, ICE vs LEO's. Others are wishing with all their heart that LEO's start arresting federal agents or preventing them from deplaning. Despite albaby's patient explanations you exhibit all the stubbornness you accuse Dope of when you continue to apply TDS logic to interpret the Supremacy clause or denying Trumps ultimate adherence to court orders. You fail to notice that most of the rancor occurs in sanctuary cities? Is that because all the other mayors and governors are OK with ICE randomly shooting their citizens? You lost an election.... get over it. and maybe try to understand the issues that got Trump elected as opposed to just condemning his way of dealing with them.

Because those aren't the rules of this board, Mike. The rules of this board is that every single thing uttered by a liberal is an immutable fact (forget what actual reality is) and all liberals are motivated only by the most altruistic of rationales. The exact opposite is true of board righties, of course - we're all a bunch of fascist NaziHiterStalinPutinPutinRussian stooges. Oh, I forgot racist liars too.

Sure. But if he claims it was in performance of his duties, he can get away with it. Evidently. ("I thought her housekeeper was illegal, so I shot her when she told me I couldn't come inside.")

How could you write something like this? Standards are always objectively applied, so it isn't what he claims if it's absurd, it's were his actions reasonably within the performance of his duties.

If truly random, why only two so far?

So, you want more? How many are required to be a problem? Both victims were not a threat, weren't doing anything illegal, and were executed because of [reasons]. Basically, random.

I'm exhibiting stubbornness? I'm having a conversation with albaby, and accept what he says since he knows the law better than me. Asking follow-up questions is not "stubbornness". It's trying to get more depth and clarity. I also don't accuse Dope of anything (except maybe bad sources). He continues to restate his erroneous conclusion that local LEOs are obligated to help the Feds, even though albaby has stated several times that is not true. I, also, have corrected him in a few replies. But I don't accuse him of anything.

As for the election, I know it was lost. Never questioned that (unlike the right-wing in 2020). Doesn't mean that I will accept illegal acts, nor not call for impeachment for cause. Not that this would succeed given the current make-up of Congress. But, the Felon has given us numerous causes for impeachment.

As for Sanctuary Cities, the only rancor is produced when ICE shows up and starts harassing people (denying them due process, no probable cause, shooting them, tear gassing them, etc). Minneapolis was perfectly peaceful until ICE showed up. Also, just to restate it (since you seem to be missing the point of it all), local LEOs are not obligated to assist federal personnel (ICE are not LEOs, which I only recently learned, so I will call them "personnel") in their duties. All the sanctuary laws (probably poorly named) do is prevent local authorities from expending their resources for federal activities. That's it. That's all the statutes do, because that's all they can do. If the feds show up with an actual warrant, locals have to assist/comply. Otherwise, they have to use their own resources to do whatever they are doing.

I also don't accuse Dope of anything (except maybe bad sources). He continues to restate his erroneous conclusion that local LEOs are obligated to help the Feds,

Really? Where do I state this?

Find a post, please. Then distinguish where I'm saying they're *legally* obligated to as opposed to morally.

TIA.

Exactly. But also do it in a “broken windows” way that Al says is a waste of resources.

If I were governor I would call out the national guard to escort ICE in the execution of their duties every day. A convoy of guards should follow ICE agents with sirens blaring to make sure the people don’t interfere with their good work.

I would also have PSAs announcing that citizens should call the police if there is any confusion about ICE agents execution of their federal duties. Police can respond promptly and make sure laws are being followed by all parties involved.

Fastidious compliance to the request that states support ICE in the execution of its duties might be the most effective strategy of limiting their excesses and abuses.

Collaboration as a form of resistance. Enforcing state law as a strategy for throwing sand in the works of the magastapo.

If truly random, why only two so far?

It is far more than two. Two in Minneapolis. More elsewhere.

You have already been told BY SPANKEE you have no right to a gun. Now what?

Where do you go WITHOUT A GUN? Ammo? AND lots of other stuff you THOUGHT you could have?

who would prevail in a shoot out, ICE vs LEO's.

Nope. Interesting guess, but totally wrong--as usual.

ICE (not LEO) vs all armed civilians supporting the US Constitution plus LEO.

ICE goes bye-bye--in body bags. They all committed suicide.

Dope1,

The leftists are nihilists.

It's psychological.

They are extremely unhappy people.

This and the other thread are hilarious.

BTW, Legal Eagle didn't do a thorough analysis (yet), but has stated that ICE should not be armed. They are not LEOs. He said "it's like arming postal workers".

Would you agree with that? - 1pg

No.

They should not be doing crowd control, either (which makes sense to me).

Agree.

Extra credit question: Who should be performing crowd control?

Extra credit question: Who should be performing crowd control?

What crowd?

US Constitution:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...so it isn't what he claims if it's absurd, it's were his actions reasonably within the performance of his duties.

You should have the "</sarcasm>" to make that clear. It must be sarcastic since we have video evidence of two blatant murders "in performance of their duties". It was only because people (including some of Congress) were screaming that the "officers" involved were put on "administrative leave". Until a proper administration comes into power, nothing more will happen to them (most likely).

Apparently, Legal Eagle is most definitely a plucked chicken.

ICE officers are most definitely federal law enforcement officers.

They are most definitely legally authorized to carry firearms.

Yet another example of a leftist know it all on the internet who makes a living making ignorant people even more ignorant.

You should have the "</sarcasm>" to make that clear. It must be sarcastic since we have video evidence of two blatant murders "in performance of their duties".

No. I'll try and explain, but to me it's easy to see, harder to explain.

No one in ICE has "execution style murder of an unarmed person who isn't a threat" as part of their duties. However, you are allowed to defend yourself. Are they allowed to move people out of their way if that person is interfering with their duties? Yes, that would be reasonably within their duties.

In Neagle, I read what was there, and he was assigned to defend a judge. And what little was there indicated the fellow had punched the judge three times, so the Marshal shot him, and he died. Since he was assigned to defend the judge by any and all means, those shots killing him fell within his assigned duties.

In Good, the fellow was partially in front of the car (a dangerous weapon) when she started moving forward, so he's going to claim self defense. Were his actions reasonably within his duties until he shot her? Yes. But I'd argue standing in front of a car wasn't prudent or part of protocol. Trump halted the prosecutor starting the investigation - so it looks like there won't be any charges or case unless the state starts one. Is self-defense allowable? Yes.

Pretti was pitched forward on the ground, blinded and incapacitated, clutching a phone. He was held down, being beaten on the head with a mace can, and stripped of his carry weapon. The ICE officer who shot him in the back, saw the carry weapon removed and carried away and drew his weapon. Then shot him in the back while he was on his knees. NO one knows what he saw or was looking at but him when he shot him. Pretti was shot multiple times, and several times after he was flipped over, prone on the ground face up - dead. None of that looks like it was reasonably within the duties of an ICE officer. It's going to be difficult to argue self defense because Pretti doesn't appear to be a threat. He can argue he mistook the phone for a gun, but that wouldn't work with me.

Sarcasm doesn't apply.

In Good, the fellow was partially in front of the car (a dangerous weapon) when she started moving forward, so he's going to claim self defense.

Will that fly if the deadly bullets were fired from the side, as the first autopsy seems to imply?

<>Is self-defense allowable? Yes.

Of course self-defense is allowable, as it has been since forever.

But the shots that killed Good were fired through a side window as the car drove past the ICE agent, while he screamed “Fucking bitch.”

That isn’t self-defense.

What suissebear and alphawolf said.

Neagle seems to have been justified. Neither Goode nor Pretti were self-defense in performance of their duties. Not even close.

In Good, the fellow was partially in front of the car (a dangerous weapon) when she started moving forward, so he's going to claim self defense. Were his actions reasonably within his duties until he shot her? Yes. But I'd argue standing in front of a car wasn't prudent or part of protocol. Trump halted the prosecutor starting the investigation - so it looks like there won't be any charges or case unless the state starts one. Is self-defense allowable? Yes.

If that was self defense then I suppose anyone standing on a road as a car drives by may shoot the driver and claim self defense. They can claim all they want, I suppose, but the claim would be ludicrous.

Of course self-defense is allowable, as it has been since forever.

But the shots that killed Good were fired through a side window as the car drove past the ICE agent, while he screamed “Fucking bitch.”

That isn’t self-defense.

And a good attorney would argue that. A defense attorney would show him sliding out of the way, ask "Do we really know what shot happened when?", promote self defense, and the odds are he gets away with it. Remember, Mike calls me loony when I say there's a 50-50 chance he drew and stood partially in front of the car, so he could use the self-defense argument to shoot her.

Neagle seems to have been justified. Neither Goode nor Pretti were self-defense in performance of their duties. Not even close.

You're thinkin with them emotions again. Toss those aside and analyze it.

There's a good case for self defense with Good. Not Pretti. With Good, the car is involved. It's a dangerous weapon. The car moves, spins wheels, shots fired, Renee dies. Defense can make a plausible case the shots were fired in self defense. Remember, I questioned why he even drew his gun as there was no threat that I could see. I think there's a 50 percent chance that he drew because he recognized a potential setup and that's why he stood partially in front of the car. To me, the car was never a threat, but it can be argued successfully that it was, so we loose on Good. I'm just analyzing this. When you analyze it, you have to acknowledge a car can be a deadly weapon. Your "not even close", is not even close. :)

Pretti on the other hand has no dangerous weapon, and will have to manufacture a threat. Looks like a strait up execution. But wee shall see.

People have to realize that some people want to get into situations where they can fire their weapon and reasonably claim self defense for shooting and killing someone, and are attracted to police work.

Will that fly if the deadly bullets were fired from the side, as the first autopsy seems to imply?

Personally, I say take the case to court and find out if it will fly. It’s a decent argument.

—Peter

In Good, the fellow was partially in front of the car (a dangerous weapon) when she started moving forward, so he's going to claim self defense.

Will that fly if the deadly bullets were fired from the side, as the first autopsy seems to imply?

I think it has a good chance. As defense, I would establish that the first shot was valid self defense, and that training is for three shots, and not excessive. I'd hammer that home, among other things. Both military and civilian train for three shot groups.

Remember, Mike calls me loony when I say there's a 50-50 chance he drew and stood partially in front of the car, so he could use the self-defense argument to shoot her.

Based on that assertion, then ANYONE can kill Ross and claim self-defense. He has a *documented history* of setting himself up to APPEAR "in danger" so he can CLAIM "self defense". Kill him first, cite self-defense afterwards. Especially for repeat offenders.

There's a good case for self defense with Good. Not Pretti. With Good, the car is involved. It's a dangerous weapon. The car moves, spins wheels, shots fired, Renee dies. Defense can make a plausible case the shots were fired in self defense.

The self-defense problem may arise since he fired shots through the side window directly into Good's head when there was no longer any "threat", even if there is successful argument that there was one with the first shot through the front window. And, of course, the angle on that first shot also indicates that it was made after the car was traveling away from the ICE man.

Even so, I doubt there will be accountability.

Pete

With Good, the car is involved.

Ross put himself in front of the car. ATTMPTED SUICIDE !! He killed her for NOT killing him.

You're thinkin with them emotions again. Toss those aside and analyze it.

1poorlady would laugh. She sometimes gets annoyed that I don't think with emotions enough (in her opinion).

I won't recap all the analysis done about the pitch of the wheels, etc. Several people on this board already did that. The fatal shots were fired through the side window as Goode was passing by. NOT self defense at that point. It's roughly the equivalent of shooting a perp that is running away. It's not defense if they're fleeing. (And she arguably wasn't a "perp".)

The fatal shots were fired through the side window as Goode was passing by. NOT self defense at that point. It's roughly the equivalent of shooting a perp that is running away. It's not defense if they're fleeing. (And she arguably wasn't a "perp".)

Yes, I've known about that since it was published. Theoretically, that might work. I give it about a 30% chance of working though. Remember, Trump stopped the investigation so there is no analysis of blood splatter from inside the car. We have some photos, videos, oral testimony, etc., but the first shot could be justified. It all happened in a few seconds - heat of the moment, training, still feeling threatened. "Fucking bitch" - well she tried to run him down with a car. All you have to do is establish a reasonable doubt and he's not convicted.

Based on that assertion, then ANYONE can kill Ross and claim self-defense. He has a *documented history* of setting himself up to APPEAR "in danger" so he can CLAIM "self defense".

I've not read about a documented history of doing this. Do you have a link?

With Good, the car is involved.

Ross put himself in front of the car. ATTMPTED SUICIDE !! He killed her for NOT killing him.

Remember, I'm the one being called loony because I think there's a possibility that's true.

If that was self defense then I suppose anyone standing on a road as a car drives by may shoot the driver and claim self defense.

This defense has been talked about widely since the incident. I don't like it, but it's a good defense.

"Yet another example of a leftist know it all on the internet who makes a living making ignorant people even more ignorant." - Marco the Russian Clown

Why do so many nutters engage in unintentional irony?

I've not read about a documented history of doing this. Do you have a link?

The Good execution.

I'm the one being called loony because I think there's a possibility that's true.

Ross is the loony one, otherwise he would NOT have CHOSEN to walk in front of the car.

The self-defense problem may arise since he fired shots through the side window directly into Good's head when there was no longer any "threat", even if there is successful argument that there was one with the first shot through the front window. And, of course, the angle on that first shot also indicates that it was made after the car was traveling away from the ICE man.

Even so, I doubt there will be accountability.

So we come to the same conclusion, and I agree with a lot. It looks like she was killed by the side shots, and they were fired after she was no threat, but even if it goes to trial, the odds are in his favor. But Pretti? We have a good chance if it isn't scuttled.

I've not read about a documented history of doing this. Do you have a link?

The Good execution.

One "iffy" time isn't a documented history.

It wasn't Good, it was GREAT.

I'm the one being called loony because I think there's a possibility that's true.

Ross is the loony one, otherwise he would NOT have CHOSEN to walk in front of the car.

Well, I knew an ex cop who didn't make it out of his rookie year due to six kills. He actually talked about setting up things so you could get away with it. Kill 5&6 weren't setups, but the shots fired were excessive. They were dead after 5 shots, he unloaded the mag into them, put in a second mag and fired more shots for a total of 19 shots. I've talked about it here before.

There were two things Ross did that puzzled me, they didn't fit. 1. When he drew his weapon there was no threat, 2. stopping partly in front of the car. They make much more sense if you look at it like he's recognizing his chance and setting it up.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.