Post New

“ICE IS CLEANING UP MINNESOTA”

SNIP
“Every Democratic elected official in Minnesota is singing the same tune: ICE is a threat to normal citizens, there is no reason for ICE to be here, ICE is doing no good, ICE is creating chaos–“chaos” is the universal term–ICE is the problem. Completely lost is any understanding of ICE’s mission. In fact, ICE has done an amazing amount of good in Minnesota, despite the universal opposition from politicians and criminal interference from the likes of Renee Good:”

SNIP
“BREAKING: ICE has provided @FoxNews a list of the most egregious criminal aliens they’ve arrested during their surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, & it’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen, including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers, most with deportation orders going back many years. Several from Laos, Somalia, and Sudan.”

WARNING GRAPHIC – Highlights below:

Here is a list of illegal alien criminals democrats, liberals and the brain dead rioters are protecting.

SNIP
“Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy & strong-arm sodomy of a girl with a deportation order since 2018.

Tou Vang, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under age 13 and procuring a child for prostitution with a deportation order since 2006.

Chong Vue, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of the strong-arm rape of a 12-year-old girl and kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her, with a deportation order since 2004,

Ge Yang, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of strong-arm rape, aggravated assault with a weapon, and strangulation with a deportation order since 2012.

Pao Choua Xiong, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of rape and child fondling with a deportation order since 2003.

Kou Lor, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of rape, rape with a weapon, and sexual assault with a deportation order since 1996.

Hernan Cortes-Valencia, Mexican illegal alien convicted of sexual assault of a child and DUI with a deportation order since 2016.

Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a Somalian illegal alien convicted of homicide.

Gilberto Salguero Landaverde, a Salvadoran illegal alien convicted of three counts of homicide with a deportation order since June 2025.

Gabriel Figueroa Gama, a Mexican illegal convicted of homicide who has been previously deported in 2002.

Galuak Michael Rotgai, a Sudanese illegal alien convicted of homicide.

Thai Lor, a Laotian illegal alien convicted of two counts of homicide with a deportation order since 2009.

Mariana Sia Kanu, an illegal alien from Sierra Leone convicted of two counts of homicide with a deportation order since 2022.

Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, a Mexican illegal alien convicted of homicide with a deportation order since 2015.

Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed, a Somalian illegal alien convicted of manslaughter with a deportation order since 2022.

Mongong Dual Maniang Deng, a Sudanese illegal alien convicted of attempt to commit homicide, weapon possession, and DUI.

Aler Gomez Lucas, a Guatemalan illegal alien convicted of negligent homicide with a vehicle and DUI with a deportation order since 2022.

Shwe Htoo, a Burmese illegal alien convicted of negligent homicide.

ICE says all of these criminal aliens were roaming freely in the sanctuary state of Minnesota prior to arrest, and that these are the type of people that politicians and activists are referring to as their “neighbors” as they attempt to interfere with ICE.

ICE deserves our undying gratitude. And you know who is not joining in the Democratic Party’s disgusting pro-crime demonstrations? People who live in neighborhoods that are terrorized by violent criminals like the ones ICE has been rounding up.”

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/ice...

To quote my exact sentiments....
And the "loving and caring" folks are desperate to make sure that these evil people are free to murder and rape children in their city. Why is that?

“Every Democratic elected official in Minnesota is singing the same tune:

Why doesn't Trump the Great and Perfect declare martial law? Then the Gov, the Mayor, and anyone else that objects can be thrown in prison, on a sedition charge, with no legal due process.

The country is headed there anyway. Why wait?

Steve

The country is headed there anyway. Why wait?

Steve

Because you are merely regurgitating dem talking points instead of supporting
ICE and their job to rid us of illegal aliens.
Why do you want illegal criminals roaming at will in our cities committing crimes and stealing
tax payers hard earned monies by welfare, medical care and other schemes to beat the system?

Because you are merely regurgitating dem talking points instead of supporting
ICE and their job to rid us of illegal aliens.

You are missing the point. The ICE dog and pony show is only to keep the mob diverted.

Former Pres. Trump: "I Am Your Justice...I Am Your Retribution"

https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/former-p...

When asked if there were limits to his power, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/america...

The entire wealth and military force of the United States, at his command, with no restraint. Not law. Not Congress. Not "we the people". Federalism is dead. The Constitution is dead. He may as well declare martial law.

Steve

The entire wealth and military force of the United States, at his command, with no restraint. Not law. Not Congress. Not "we the people". Federalism is dead. The Constitution is dead. He may as well declare martial law.

Steve

77.3 million American citizens gave President Trump the go ahead to keep his campaign promises....
Close the border and deport illegal aliens.

Regurgitating dem talking points? Try thinking like an American citizen wanting America and
Americans first and rid us of the illegal criminal aliens and the moochers of the American system.

Lurker Mom,

It's because all the corruption money going to Somalis, NGOs, day care centers, etc. is being laundered back to Democrat politicians like Waltz. They don't want that spigot to stop.

They enable illegal aliens because there is payback.

They don't care about the collateral damage.

That's why.

They enable illegal aliens because there is payback.

They don't care about the collateral damage.

That's why.

Yep, no doubt about it. The money tree is being cut down.

The entire wealth and military force of the United States, at his command, with no restraint. Not law. Not Congress. Not "we the people". Federalism is dead. The Constitution is dead. He may as well declare martial law.

I can't really reply to LM without breaking my personal posting rule (which I won't do). Suffice to say, her "news" sources continue to be rubbish.

1poorlady is expecting a declaration of martial law. She lived though the Marcos years when he did that, and sees many parallels. Declaring fake emergencies, deploying troops, and eventually saying "it's so bad we have to suspend elections and declare martial law". They couldn't get rid of the SOB for 14 years.

I can't really reply to LM without breaking my personal posting rule (which I won't do). Suffice to say, her "news" sources continue to be rubbish.

LOL.

Well I guess 1pg won’t see my reply and why he has no understanding of this thread.
But ask me if I care.

Why does the dems and left want criminals, rapist, murderers living among us, fighting
ICE to do their job making America and Minneapolis safe again?

Why does the dems and left want criminals, rapist, murderers living among us, fighting
ICE to do their job making America and Minneapolis safe again?

They don't. Any more than the fact that we believe that the criminally accused is entitled to a fair trial requiring proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt means we want criminals, rapists, and murderers to escape conviction. Even though a standard that makes sure that no innocent person is imprisoned means that some criminals will avoid conviction. "Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than imprison an innocent man."

So this isn't that people want criminals to go free. They simply recognize that the Administration is not even trying to limit their enforcement activities to people who are known to actually be criminals, and are instead trying to deport as many people as they can who are in the country without authorization - regardless of whether those people committed a crime (some unauthorized folks did not), and regardless of whether they committed a crime other than having entered the country without authorization.

They don't want otherwise law-abiding unauthorized residents to be expelled from the country. Largely that's based on considerations of proportionality - the same reason we don't have capital punishment for misdemeanor theft (to use an extreme and hopefully noncontroversial illustration). Yes, misdemeanor theft is wrong, but we don't kill people for it because the consequences would be vastly disproportionate to the violation.

So many dems and leftists believe that the policy of deporting people without criminal records has consequences that are disproportionate to the violation. You might not agree with this balancing of values. But it is wrong to say that dems and leftists want the rapists and murderers to stay in the U.S. They would be happy for ICE to deport the rapists and murderers. They just don't want ICE to also deport the random mom of three who's never done a thing wrong except being brought to this country when she was a teenager two decades ago. They want ICE and the Administration to go back to the system of going after the ones who are the worst of the worst and not targeting folks who are not a threat to anyone when they comply with their hearing dates and voluntarily walk into a courtroom (to give an example).

1poorlady is listening to onepoorguy and others like him a bit too much, then. Or maybe when dealing with a paranoid schizophrenic, 1poorlady has learned that just saying "yes dear" to his paranoid ideations and ravings is the quickest way to avoid conflict.

LurkerMom,

Because they are MAKING A LOT OF MONEY off of the chaos.

The SUV driver's "partner" set up a go fund me and last I heard collected $1.5 million. Maybe it's a lot more by now.

Cashing in on the destruction of Western Society.

Collateral damage doesn't matter, it's a feature, not a bug.

So many dems and leftists believe that the policy of deporting people without criminal records has consequences that are disproportionate to the violation.

And they're free to propose legislation changing the laws any time they want. But what they're doing is crossing the lines between free speech/protest/civil disobedience/outright law breaking.

They want ICE and the Administration to go back to the system of going after the ones who are the worst of the worst and not targeting folks who are not a threat to anyone when they comply with their hearing dates and voluntarily walk into a courtroom (to give an example).

Yeah, well here's the problem: so many DON'T show up for their court dates. What do you do with them? Or should the policy be to just look the other way, regardless of what the law says?

And they're free to propose legislation changing the laws any time they want. But what they're doing is crossing the lines between free speech/protest/civil disobedience/outright law breaking.

As long as they're just speaking/recording/making noise, they're fine. If they actually physically stop the ICE people from doing their jobs, then they're breaking the law.

Yeah, well here's the problem: so many DON'T show up for their court dates. What do you do with them? Or should the policy be to just look the other way, regardless of what the law says?

If they don't show up for their court dates, then go after them. If you have the ICE agents waiting at the courthouse to specifically target the folks who are trying to comply, which is what they've been doing, then your policy is going to have some very deserved criticism. Because the people who are voluntarily walking into the courthouse to comply with their hearing notices are typically not "the worst of the worst." And if you deliberately target them just because they're easy targets, then you're actively discouraging everyone to voluntarily comply with their hearing dates - which is presumably the opposite of what you want.

Again, this is not rocket science. Differentiate. If the country is filled with unauthorized people that are the "worst of the worst," go after them. Don't go after the random father of two who voluntarily keeps to his appointed court date.

Again, this is not rocket science. Differentiate. If the country is filled with unauthorized people that are the "worst of the worst," go after them. Don't go after the random father of two who voluntarily keeps to his appointed court date.

What percentage of the people they're picking up are keeping their court dates?

What percentage of the people they're picking up are keeping their court dates?

Let’s start with the obvious:

100% of the people ICE snatches as they show up for their court dates are showing up for their court dates.

Why is ICE targeting. People who are complying with the law?

Answer: “We got quotas, man! And these folks are easy pickings. We just set up outside the courthouse and they come to us!”

100% of the people ICE snatches as they show up for their court dates are showing up for their court dates.

And 100% of those people are here illegally.

Which brings me back the *obvious* question I asked:

Why aren’t democrats advocating for changes in the law?

What percentage of the people they're picking up are keeping their court dates?

Probably a fair amount. They don't report figures, of course, for the specific folks they've been detaining during the last twelve months. But undocumented folks typically have fairly high rates of court date compliance (upper 70s to 90%, depending on the estimate, one link below).

The administration has been fairly indiscriminate in who they detain. The CATO Institute took a look at who ICE was grabbing, and found that the majority had no criminal convictions at all, and that barely 7% had any convictions for violent crimes. So there's no particular reason to expect that the compliance rate of the people that they're picking up is going to deviate particularly from the general compliance rate, because they're not concentrating on the "worst of the worst."

And of course, the fact that they've been sending ICE agents to courthouses to specifically detain folks who are there to attend their hearings is going to skew the proportion in favor of getting more compliant folks than less ones.



https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/26/...
https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-...

The policy of deporting people who are in the country illegally is PRECISELY "proportional" to the offense committed.

They're not supposed to be here, so they can't be here. It's exact proportionality.

Now we have to ALSO WAIT for them not only to commit CRIMES, but to be captured and convicted of those crimes???

That's what the criminal law is for.

Besides, encouraging illegal immigration is a "seive" and you are going to have a huge population of people who just have no respect for the law of any kind if they think there will be no consequences.

They vote illegally, they drive with no insurance or inadequate insurance, they work off the books and don't pay taxes, if they are "contractors" they are unlicensed and have no insurance, and on, and on, and on.

And maybe they are NEVER convicted of a "crime."

These people are selfish and looking out only for themselves. Period. They have no respect for this country or its laws, period. They will get away with as much as they think they can get away with, period.

Sorry albaby1,

ICE is not obligated to "differentiate" in a manner that comports with your delicate feelings.

They are obligated to act in accordance with the law.

If illegal aliens come for their court dates, they are just complying with the law. Fine.

That doesn't give them a "pass" on compliance with ALL THE OTHER LAWS that might be in effect.

Probably a fair amount. They don't report figures, of course, for the specific folks they've been detaining during the last twelve months. But undocumented folks typically have fairly high rates of court date compliance (upper 70s to 90%, depending on the estimate, one link below).

Hmmm. And then there's this:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/20...

Tom Temin: And this seems like a super important report because whatever we decide is immigration policy. One thing in statute now is that noncitizens have to appear for immigration court hearings. And it would seem basic that they do so. What did you find here?

Rebecca Gambler: Yes. Thank you, Tom. So respondents are expected to appear for their immigration court hearings. And when I say respondents, I mean noncitizens who are charged as being removable from the country for violating immigration law. If respondents don’t appear for their immigration court hearings, they could be subject to legal consequences. For example, they may be subject to what’s known as an in absentia removal order. In that case, a judge could order an individual respondent removed from the country in their absence.

Tom Temin: And what did you find specifically about the system and whether justice is able to even know all of this?

Rebecca Gambler: Thank you, Tom. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is in the Department of Justice, does not track or report data on whether respondents appear at their hearings or whether their appearance was waived. And that’s because EOIR’s case management system doesn’t have a function to systematically record that type of information without that function. We heard from immigration court officials that the agency’s case management system has other fields that could be used to indicate whether respondents appeared at hearings. But we found that those other fields aren’t a reliable source for tracking whether or not respondents appeared at the hearing or had their appearance waived by an immigration judge.

So they're...not really tracking it.

The GAO's report is here
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106867

Fast Facts
The Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review holds immigration hearings to determine whether noncitizens will be removed from the country. As of July 2024, there's a backlog of about 3.5 million pending cases.

Noncitizens are expected to attend their hearings. Failing to show up could result in removal from the U.S.—unless a judge waives their appearance. But the Office's case management system doesn't collect data systematically that shows whether someone appeared at hearings or whether a judge issued a waiver.

We recommended the Office add this function to its system so it has reliable data on hearing appearances.

What the GAO found:
The Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is responsible for conducting immigration court proceedings. If a respondent—a noncitizen who has been charged with violating immigration law—fails to appear for any of their hearings, an immigration judge may order them removed from the country in their absence (“in absentia”). A judge may also waive their appearance and otherwise resolve the case, depending on the facts and circumstances. However, EOIR does not track or report data on whether respondents appear at their hearings or whether their appearance was waived, because EOIR's case management system does not have a function to systematically record such information. EOIR officials stated that the system has other information that could indicate whether respondents appeared at hearings, such as data on in absentia removal orders and certain hearing adjournment codes. However, these data do not reliably track respondents' appearance at hearings. Developing and implementing a function in its system and publicly reporting on that data would better position EOIR to provide reliable information to Congress and others about the extent respondents appear for their hearings.

According to EOIR data, from fiscal years 2016 through 2023, the total in absentia rate was 34 percent for removal cases of non-detained respondents. EOIR calculates the in absentia rate by dividing the number of in absentia removal orders by the number of immigration judges' initial decisions resolving cases. The rate varied by certain characteristics, such as court location, legal representation status, and demographic characteristics.

So we...really don't know.

At any rate, illegals who have court dates are only a contingent of the full population of people in the country illegally.

They aren't targeting people who are complying with the law.

They are targeting people who are subject to detention and deportation.

A subset of those illegals happen to have court dates that they show up for.

Showing up for a court date, as required by law, does not in any way "immunize" them from enforcement of other laws that are applicable to their particular situations.

But the people who show up to court, while they may be complying with the law in the sense of making a mandatory court appearance, aren't overall "complying with the law" with respect to immigration law.

That's the thing.

You claim they are legally compliant, wah wah wah.

No, they're not legally compliant, they are and have been in the country illegally.

Your premise is that of a dum dum.

The administration has been fairly indiscriminate in who they detain. The CATO Institute took a look at who ICE was grabbing, and found that the majority had no criminal convictions at all, and that barely 7% had any convictions for violent crimes. So there's no particular reason to expect that the compliance rate of the people that they're picking up is going to deviate particularly from the general compliance rate, because they're not concentrating on the "worst of the worst."

As Bill said, they have quotas to meet. Some 600,000 were deported in 2025, short of the 1M target. It's for the enjoyment of the base. They apparently want to see brown people, and the libs that try to protect them, beaten up and deported. Notice that Trump the Perfect Specimen of Manhood, wants to find some pretext to revoke naturalized citizenship and deport people who *did* comply with US immigration law.

Steve

At any rate, illegals who have court dates are only a contingent of the full population of people in the country illegally.

Sure. And showing up at the court hearings are only a contingent of the full population of people who are being detained who have done nothing wrong apart from being in the country without authorization (and the still larger population of detainees whose thing they did wrong were minor infractions like traffic violations and whatnot).

The point is that Democrats and leftists aren't objecting to the change in policy because they actively want rapists and murderers to stay in the country. Everyone agrees that rapists and murderers who are here illegally should be deported ASAP. Where Democrats and leftists disagree is the balance of priorities between deporting as many people as quickly as possible (which involves deporting a ton of people who aren't rapists and murderers) vs. targeting for enforcement against people who are rapists and murderers.

BTW - that doesn't mean Democrats and leftists are right. Maybe immigration policy should broader enforcement. All it means is that it's not their goal to have rapists and murderers stay in the country. Their policy is based on other objectives, not a desire to achieve the unintended bad effect. Which is why I responded to LM's rhetorical effort to portray Democrats and leftists as wanting murderers and rapists to stay in the country.

Dope1: What percentage of the people they're picking up are keeping their court dates?

Well, how about this: immigrants have appeared for all scheduled hearings in 83% of all pending and completed cases over an 11-year period, from 2008-2018 (the most current data). And 96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings from 2008 to 2018.

As for those they're picking up, who knows. The completely transparent agency in the most completely transparent administration in history doesn't report those data.

But in short, available evidence consistently shows that most people in immigration proceedings — including those released from detention — do appear for their scheduled court dates at high rates when they are given notice and ability to attend.


https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/...

They want ICE and the Administration to go back to the system of going after the ones who are the worst of the worst and not targeting folks who are not a threat to anyone when they comply with their hearing dates and voluntarily walk into a courtroom (to give an example).

Nice telling, Albaby. Reading this very thorough discussion on the importance of due process is beneficial to a lot of us as we grapple with the daily flood of misinformation.... but...

It reminds me of one of my favorite Gary Larsen cartoons, Albaby being the man, the MAGA being the dog.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/e0/1a/04e01adece...

"Blah blah blah, MAGA <implied>. Blah blah blah MAGA...."

One thing I've learned from Albaby was how to craft a post without referring to myself or the poster I'm addressing. Stick to the point... not the writers.

They would be happy for ICE to deport the rapists and murderers.

And that is exactly what ICE is trying to accomplished as stated in the OP.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/ice...

The question remains, why are hundreds and hundreds of protesters causing havoc, trying to stop
ICE, preventing them do their job, sort out the bad from the good.

SNIP
AI Overview
Yes, a protest can become illegal if individuals physically impede or forcibly interfere with federal law enforcement agents, including ICE agents, while they are performing their official duties.
The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and protest; however, this right does not extend to physically obstructing or assaulting law enforcement officers.
Specific federal laws that make such interference a crime include:
18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Federal Officers): This statute makes it a felony to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer on duty. Even minor acts, such as pushing an agent or physically blocking their path, can lead to charges under this law, with potential prison sentences of up to eight years, or longer if a deadly weapon is used or bodily injury is inflicted.
18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of Justice): Protesters may face obstruction charges if they are accused of interfering with an ongoing investigation or operation, such as attempting to impede a deportation or detention hearing.
8 U.S.C. § 1324 (Harboring or Shielding Immigrants): Attempting to hide or shield undocumented immigrants from detection or detention by federal agents can also result in serious federal felony charges.
Federal agents have the authority to give lawful orders to maintain public safety and control movement during operations, and failure to comply with such orders can be considered interference. While the public has the right to record law enforcement in public spaces, they must do so from a safe distance and avoid physical contact or interference.

https://www.google.com/search?q=AI+overview+protes...

And that is exactly what ICE is trying to accomplish as stated in the OP.

But they're trying to accomplish things other than that. They're also trying to get rid of lots of people who are not rapists and murderers. And the Democrats and leftists are objecting to ICE trying to get rid of all those other people. Not to them getting rid of the rapists and murderers.

This is pretty basic stuff. If a policy will have two effects, A and B, someone can object to the policy because they disagree with causing A without necessarily supporting B - or support the policy because it causes A without necessarily wanting B.

The classic example being our requirement that accused criminals be given a trial by jury and only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That has the effect of reducing the number of innocent people in jail (good!) and increasing the number of guilty people who are not convicted (bad!). But someone can support due process because they want to protect innocent people without it being true that they want guilty people to go free.

They're also trying to get rid of lots of people who are not rapists and murderers

If an illegal alien came across the border into America, they are illegal aliens.

What part of illegal don’t you understand? The governments objective is to go after the really
bad illegals first, but an illegal alien is just that, illegal ie: a criminal.

The classic example being our requirement that accused criminals be given a trial by jury and only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That has the effect of reducing the number of innocent people in jail (good!) and increasing the number of guilty people who are not convicted (bad!). But someone can support due process because they want to protect innocent people without it being true that they want guilty people to go free.

That’s a great example! In fact most of us grew up listening to teachers and parents repeat the words of William Blackstone:

“It’s better that 10 guilty men be acquitted than 1 innocent man be condemned”.

What part of illegal don’t you understand? The governments objective is to go after the really
bad illegals first, but an illegal alien is just that, illegal ie: a criminal.

First, not all illegal aliens are criminals. Some 30-40% or so entered the country legally. Being in the country without authorization is not a criminal violation; only the act of crossing the border unlawfully is actually a crime. And about 10% of illegal border crossers came as children, who almost certainly lacked the agency in their crossing decision to be criminals.

Second, not all penalties are appropriate or proportional for all criminals.

We don't execute people for shoplifting, even though a shoplifter is just as much a criminal as a mass murderer. Because the law recognizes proportionality as a very important value of a penal system. Even for criminals. Most of the folks who vigorously object to the Administration's policy do so because they believe that deportation is a disproportionately severe penalty for someone who has not committed any crimes apart from their entry, and thus present no risk (and perhaps very little culpability).

So, no. Not every illegal alien is a criminal. And reasonable minds can differ about whether the sanction of being deported is appropriate for even criminal aliens who have otherwise been well-behaved.

only the act of crossing the border unlawfully is actually a crime.

Thank you, case close.

Why does the dems and left want criminals, rapist, murderers living among us,...

The left doesn't. Your premise is flawed, and therefore your conclusion is not reliable.

I think I can safely say that NO ONE wants that (left or right). Period.

BTW, I didn't say I frownied you, only that it was difficult to reply without breaking my personal posting rule (basically, the same rule Dope and I agreed to way back on Political Asylum). Doesn't mean I don't see what you write.

Thank you, case close.

How is that case closed? Many illegal aliens didn't cross the border illegally. And even for those that did, deportation may be a disproportionally severe penalty. We generally require that a punishment be proportional to the crime committed, and it's hardly unreasonable for people to have differing opinions about whether a particular consequence is appropriate for a particular crime. Again, that's why we have different consequences for people who commit petty theft than for mass murder - even though both are criminals.

Just because you don't want to engage with an argument doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.

They don't want otherwise law-abiding unauthorized residents to be expelled from the country.

Ummm...ooohhh...errr...

Gonna have to throw a flag. I think most people on either side of the aisle have no problem with removing unauthorized residents, in general. There could be a laundry list of exceptions. For example, someone has a protection order, like that guy deported exactly to the place the judge says we couldn't deport him. I think a better use of resources would NOT be going after "otherwise law-abiding" folks, but I won't defend those folks to the extent that I say "they can stay here forever". They do deserve to have their cases properly adjudicated, and not be shot at random. Proper adjudication means being in front of a judge. But if they are here illegally, and don't fit into that laundry list, then they should expect to be removed. That gives me no heartburn.

I do have problems with deporting people that have legit visas (or residency cards), either for no reason (like students) or because they committed some crime 20 years ago and already served the time. If they've already served the time, there's no legitimate 'beef' with them if they are here on a valid residency card. Or deporting them to a country they've never been to.

They just don't want ICE to also deport the random mom of three who's never done a thing wrong except being brought to this country when she was a teenager two decades ago.

Or that. Yes. We need to sort out the status of such persons. Many were brought when they were babies, and know no other country. We shouldn't be punishing them for the actions of their parents. "Sins of the father", so to speak.

I also fully support birth-right citizenship, at least in part because government can't then just deport me because they don't like me. Plus, the whole thing about deporting someone to a country they've never lived in.

I think most people on either side of the aisle have no problem with removing unauthorized residents, in general.

There are certainly some people on the Democratic/left side of the aisle that believe that. There are others that do not - that believe that unauthorized residents who have been here for a while without doing anything wrong apart from their immigration status should be given a path to citizenship. And I think that as a general matter, most of the people who are actively objecting to ICE at this moment are far more likely to fall into the latter camp. Some in the former camp might be perfectly supportive of ICE's current policy generally, though perhaps unhappy with some specific details.

I thought it came through in context in other parts of my post, but to be clear, there is no universal belief on immigration that all Democrats or leftists hold, and my comments were intended to primarily address the folks who are the strongest critics of the Administration's current immigration policies.

We generally require that a punishment be proportional to the crime committed...

Sure. But if you cross the border (with agency) illegally, what else would you suggest? I think prison would be pretty harsh, plus the taxpayer is supporting them in there. A recurring fine for as long as they remain? I s'pose, but that seems a bit problematic. Sending them home seems the least harsh, assuming the laundry list of exceptions doesn't apply (referring to my earlier post).

Sure. But if you cross the border (with agency) illegally, what else would you suggest?

For me, it depends on context. The consequence to both the person who crossed illegally and other people increases dramatically with the length of time that person has been here. Someone who crossed the border 20 minutes ago suffers modest consequences if they're turned around and marched back. Someone who crossed the border 20 years ago, who has married and has two children who are U.S. citizens and has built a life here? A lot more negative consequences, not only to them but also to innocent people. That stuff changes the cost-benefit analysis to enforcement decisions. It's why the immigration laws are larded up with humanitarian and other considerations.

There are plenty of countervailing principles that people of good conscience can - and do - raise against taking those things into account (or at least against giving them a lot of weight): moral hazard and negative incentives, for example. But regardless of where you land on it, we should acknowledge that there are some good-faith arguments against "it would be good policy if every single person here without authorization were to be deported without exception."

There are others that do not - that believe that unauthorized residents who have been here for a while without doing anything wrong apart from their immigration status should be given a path to citizenship.

Sure. But now you're talking immigration reform. I thought we were discussing under current law.

If we put immigration reform on the table, we could resolve most of these issues (like DREAMERs).

FWIW, I'm objecting to ICE at present because they are using gestapo-like tactics, excessive force, and violating due process. These are, in several ways, counterproductive. Like waiting to scoop up people who show for their hearings (i.e. we WANT those folks to show up for their hearings so they can be properly adjudicated, as you mentioned in another post). Oh, and they are showing that many of them were hastily/improperly trained, and have no business being federal agents. I also object to the poor use of resources. IMO, it's more a political tool to get people focused on that while the administration gets away with other stuff (like implying that we'll take Greenland by force).

...to be clear, there is no universal belief on immigration that all Democrats or leftists hold...

Sure. But I think the majority hold that if you're here illegally, and it is properly adjudicated, then you would be eligible for removal. I also think the majority want some serious immigration reform to better spell out policies, and create some sort of bracero program.

Many illegal aliens didn't cross the border illegally.

What?

Just because you don't want to engage with an argument doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.

I’ve replied to you each time. Is this your way of exiting your double speak, ummm, valid arguments?

But I think the majority hold that if you're here illegally, and it is properly adjudicated, then you would be eligible for removal.

Sure - at that level of abstraction. But if you start giving them the details (mother of three young children who are U.S. citizens, lived here for twenty years without doing any harm, pillar of the community, etc.), they would be reluctant to see the full weight of deportation fall on that particular person.

Should people who steal be "eligible" for going to jail? Sure. Should 100% of every high schooler who gets caught shoplifting be arrested, arraigned, and prosecuted? Probably not. Who should be more vigorously prosecuted - prostitutes or johns? Etc. Our criminal justice system is built around some level of discretion and judgment not just at the law-writing level, but also in the enforcement decisions and prosecutorial choices. It's a recognition that written words in the statute books are unlikely to ever be drafted finely enough to achieve actual justice in the way that a system made up of humans exercising judgment can.

That's why I think a majority of the people who are most vigorously upset with what ICE is doing, especially their choice to go after so many folks who have not engaged in criminal behavior other than their immigration status, are not likely to support a blanket rule that every person who has entered illegally should be removed. Eligible for removal? Perhaps, just like very shoplifter and every prostitute/john is eligible to be tried to the full extent of the law. But I don't think that a majority would think that expelling that mother of three and leaving her young children behind is the right outcome.

What?

Exactly what I said. Many illegal aliens didn't cross the border illegally.

Some are folks who entered legally but remained unlawfully. Some are folks who entered the country at a port of entry by claiming asylum status, and are either pending or have lost their hearings. Some are folks who entered the country with one of the many Temporary Protective Status authorizations or other legal status that has since expired or been affirmatively revoked by the Trump Administration. And some were brought as minors into the country, which means that while they might have been brought into the country without authorization they would not have committed any crime.

I’ve replied to you each time. Is this your way of exiting your double speak, ummm, valid arguments?

No, it's a response to your "case closed" statement, as if the fact that someone were to have committed a crime in coming here that it would completely settle the issue entirely. It does not. The points I raised upthread are the arguments that are raised that even if someone has committed a crime by entering the country, one can still reasonably disagree over whether expelling them from the country is the appropriate consequence. And that such disagreement does not constitute support for criminals, but a rational dispute over what should be done when someone has committed a crime. You might prefer not to engage with those arguments and explain why you disagree, and instead merely assert "case closed" - but that doesn't mean that the arguments aren't sound, and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist as alternatives to the belief system you are wrongfully attributing to people who disagree with you.

You aren't going to like this reply:

Virtually ALL the cited dates are during RWNJ Presidencies. Explain why YOU love all those sexual perverts such as the Spankee Crime Family.

Why do you want illegal criminals roaming at will in our cities committing crimes and stealing tax payers hard earned monies by welfare, medical care and other schemes to beat the system?

You really love your Grifters in Chief. The RWNJs are mostly nothing but grifters. Otherwise, they would not NEED PARDONS FOR THEIR CRIMES.

Try thinking like an American citizen wanting America and Americans first and rid us of the illegal criminal aliens and the moochers of the American system.

I don't see YOUR papers allowing you to live here.

Now, let us watch you screw up yet again....

Try thinking like an American citizen wanting America and Americans first and rid us of the illegal criminal aliens and the moochers of the American system.

Still haven't seen YOUR papers permitting YOU to legally be in this country.

Crime goes down when the RWNJs and ICE leave.

set up a go fund me

Does "Memory Pizza" ring a bell? Or don't you have any memory of it? LOL !

...we should acknowledge that there are some good-faith arguments against "it would be good policy if every single person here without authorization were to be deported without exception."

Agreed. In fact, I make some of them. I take exception to the "without exception". As stated, I would oppose that policy. There are a long list of exceptions that could be written. I think a supporter of that type of policy is not operating in "good conscience".

The case you created is very gray. Do we put a statute of limitations on illegal crossings? If not, the being here 20 years takes on a different tenor. On the one hand, the person has made a life without incident here. OTOH, they aren't authorized to be here. Very gray. If they married a US citizen, even grayer. Do we deport the spouse of a US citizen who has otherwise not committed any crimes? Maybe impose a fine, and give a path for citizenship (which marrying a US citizen can legally do already)? It's tricky.

What part of illegal don’t you understand? The governments objective is to go after the really bad illegals first, but an illegal alien is just that, illegal ie: a criminal.

Per you, you are a criminal. You said so, above (just quoted you, so your problem).

Pack and leave the country NOW. Per YOU.

Some are folks who entered legally but remained unlawfully.
Some are folks who entered the country at a port of entry by claiming asylum status, and are either pending or have lost their hearings. Some are folks who entered the country with one of the many Temporary Protective Status authorizations or other legal status that has since expired or been affirmatively revoked by the Trump Administration.

These are problems to be worked out in Court. I do have a problem with those who let their legal status expire and did nothing to bring it up to date.

And some were brought as minors into the country, which means that while they might have been brought into the country without authorization they would not have committed any crime.

I agree. The Dreamers should be granted citizenship. That brings up another problem what to do with
illegal parents and their anchor babies. I’m not sure if Trump issued an executive order denying citizenship for anchor babies.

These are problems to be worked out in Court. I do have a problem with those who let their legal status expire and did nothing to bring it up to date.

A reasonable position. But their violation is a civil violation. It's not a crime.

As for the Dreamers, the cohort that was formally covered by the Obama-era DACA EO now number about 500K - and they're all adults. There's about 1.2 million unauthorized immigrants that are currently children, and the interwebs tells me that the total number of all unauthorized folks that were brought over the border as children (and thus are highly unlikely to be criminally culpable for that crossing) is about 3-3.5 million.

Combined with the overstayers, the folks who entered the country by claiming asylum at a POE (which is lawful), the folks who entered under other protected status that has since been revoked (Haitians, about half a million Venezuelans, etc.), and the 3+ million folks who entered as children...well, that's a lot of the unauthorized population. There's some overlap, it's pretty likely that a majority (or something close to it) of the unauthorized population did not commit a crime when they entered. And since being in the country without authorization is a civil, not criminal, violation they wouldn't have committed any crimes by remaining.

So if anyone claims that ICE is just going after criminals because anyone who is eligible for deportation is a criminal, that's categorically false.

These are problems to be worked out in Court.

That's what most of the left wants, too.

I do have a problem with those who let their legal status expire and did nothing to bring it up to date.

Ditto. Especially if they could get the visa in the first place, how hard is it to keep it up to date? Though some deliberately overstay their visas. As you say, I have a problem with that.

I agree. The Dreamers should be granted citizenship.

I tend to agree, as most left-leaning people do.

"Anchor babies" is a bit problematic. If they were born here, they're citizens. It's right there in the Constitution. I don't think that should be cause to allow their parents whom are here illegally to remain. But that kid -even if deported with the parents- should be able to return one day as an adult, if for no other reason than it's the law (per the 14th Amendment).

"Anchor babies" is a bit problematic. If they were born here, they're citizens. It's right there in the Constitution. I don't think that should be cause to allow their parents whom are here illegally to remain. But that kid -even if deported with the parents- should be able to return one day as an adult, if for no other reason than it's the law (per the 14th Amendment).

If it comes down to it, it will be one messy fight.

What humors me though is in my OP in this thread, I have not seen (or perhaps I missed it)
one word from the left what ICE accomplished ridding Minnesota of some of the worst illegal
aliens roaming the streets of Minnesota. No kudos no thank you for ICE putting themselves in
danger to round up the worst of the worst.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/ice...

Snip
“BREAKING: ICE has provided @FoxNews a list of the most egregious criminal aliens they've arrested during their surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, & it's the most disturbing list I've ever seen, including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers,”

If you sneak into the movie theater without paying for a ticket, the usher can kick you out.

Even if you don't: Talk loud during the movie; spill your popcorn on the floor; get into a fist fight with someone else watching the movie; or rape and murder a college student.

Many illegal aliens didn't cross the border illegally.

What?

Entered legally, but overstayed their visas.

albaby brings up the comparison of illegal immigrants with shoplifters.

Very apt.

What happens to shoplifters?

Even if not actually prosecuted, they typically get BANNED from the premises. Sometimes it's called "trespassing" them.

That's a very GOOD analogy for illegal immigrants who haven't been proven to have committed other violations of the law.


And the same remedy applies.

You are here without legal authorization?

Bye bye Felicia.

albaby,

Deportation is not a "penalty."

Deporting illegal aliens, even those who have not committed what you consider to be criminal behavior, is simply proper enforcement of immigration laws.

They are in the country without authorization. Therefore, they must leave. But that's not a "penalty" since they had no right or privilege to be in the country in the first place!

They are not being deprived of anything that they had a cognizable legal or equitable interest in.

If you're at the ATM machine, and it spits out $500 to you because it's broken, that's not your money. You have to take it into the bank and return it to the bank.

Were you "penalized" $500? No. It wasn't yours in the first place, but you still have a legal obligation to return it rather than to keep it.

My god some of you think-you-know-it-all leftists really have no common sense at all.

If they committed a crime 20 years ago and lied about it on their visa or green card application form or process, then obviously they committed fraud and should be deported.

right civil violation, and removal is a civil remedy

Duh

I’m not sure if Trump issued an executive order denying citizenship for anchor babies.

He can't deny them US citizenship. Otherwise, his own citizenship could be denied under the same basis. OOPS !!!

Plus, all those Russian AND Middle Eastern babies born in the US would also lose THEIR US citizenship. Then he would have to PAY BACK ALL THE MONEY THEY PAID HIM so they could have babies BORN with US citizenship. Be careful what you ask for. It could bite back--BIG TIME.

I have not seen (or perhaps I missed it) one word from the left what ICE accomplished ridding Minnesota of some of the worst illegal aliens roaming the streets of Minnesota.

We already got rid of most of the criminals in the state--funny how so many were Spankee supporters who got sent to jail.

Which is why RWNJs don't like coming to MN. We lock up those criminals. If Ross gets convicted, he will go to jail. You remember, Chauvin got 20+yrs. Ross could get 8-15 yrs.

really have no common sense at all.

How much of Spankee's BS have you swallowed--thus far? Is your list LONG--or short? LOL.

List ALL the Spankee crap you think is true. This is going to be Laugh-In funny.

Maybe impose a fine, and give a path for citizenship (which marrying a US citizen can legally do already)?

Don’t even need a path to citizenship necessarily. Permanent legal residency could be sufficient.

—Peter

"Anchor babies" is a bit problematic. If they were born here, they're citizens. It's right there in the Constitution.

Could you accept a clause that would address 'birth tourism"; the intent to visit the US solely for the purpose of birthing on US soil?

Seems that's not unlike marriage for the sole purpose of skirting deportation.

Could you accept a clause that would address 'birth tourism"; the intent to visit the US solely for the purpose of birthing on US soil?

Sure. It would be really difficult to change the Constitution at this point, but if you could, I'm sure the language could be worked such that it was fair and made sense.

Seems that's not unlike marriage for the sole purpose of skirting deportation.

I think that's more in the movies (did make for a cute Sandra Bullock movie). I'm sure it happens IRL, but it's not common. The penalties for the citizen can be pretty stiff. During the interviews, they can ask some really personal questions that a married couple would know (e.g. favorite position). If the answers don't line up, the one is deported and the other is imprisoned. For us, they didn't get that personal. But for some, they do.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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