Post New

Guess ICE thinks that's a clever name for their operation in Charlotte, NC. Do they realize that one of the characters in that story is a PIG?

It was not immediately clear how many undocumented immigrants had been detained as of early Saturday afternoon, but the reach of the operation, dubbed “Charlotte’s Web” by the agency, appeared to be spreading.

Hamas fans hate PIGS because PIGS are "haram" (i.e. unclean, forbidden, verboten) in Islam.

Those of us who are not Hamas fans don't take PIGS personally.

In the book Charlotte's Web, Wilbur the Pig is actually the hero/protagonist, a very sympathetic figure who Charlotte and the other farm animals cooperate together to help rescue from being slaughtered for food. Thus, the book Charlotte's Web actually represents the pro-social values that Democrat and ProGlibs give lip service to, but don't actually follow or truly believe in.

Antisocial criminals often refer to law enforcement as "pigs" because, being pro-Hamas, they dislike pigs, and being delusional, they anthropomorphize farm animals. But unlike a cute children's story, pro-Hamas delusional lunatics do it for sinister purposes. If pigs are unclean and worthy only of death, according to your ideology, then if you equate law enforcement personnel with pigs, your delusional mindset allows you to justify committing violence on "unclean" law enforcement personnel.

This sort of dehumanization tactic is typical of Nazis.

Have a nice day.

Antisocial criminals often refer to law enforcement as "pigs"

In the 70s, Lansing, MI, hosted the "pigs vs freaks" football game, for charity. The teams were, literally, composed of policemen and hippies. Apparently, the last "pigs vs freaks" game was in 1977. People don't seem to have the sense of humor they did in the 70s.


In the fall of 1970, someone called the East Lansing Police Department to report that trespassers who looked like "hippies" were on the playing field of a local high school. When the officer arrived, he asked the young men to leave the field. They refused.

During the ensuing conversations, the hippies or "freaks" challenged the "pigs" to a football game. The officer accepted the challenge.

On Nov. 7, 1970, police officers from surrounding agencies, the "Pigs," met the "Freaks" for a football game on that same field for the "Pigs vs. Freaks" game, also known as the "Bull Bowl." More than 7,000 fans watched as the Freaks won the game.

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/life/201...

Steve

Steve,
back in the good ol hippie flower power peace sign days,the vast majority of the left wanted to put flowers in guns and believed in nonviolence a la mlk jr. and ghandi. Peace love and mind expanding drugs. I'm sure you remember well lol.

Nowadays the hard left is completely different. They are a violent death cult and certainly lacking any sense of humor at all. The core marxists revolutionaries who advocated pure hatred and revolution took over academia in the intervening decades, grew up, and brainwashed todays youth.

When Trump's gICEtapo comes to town

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xgiwtxbtt6xc7low5...

A café known for empanadas and music stayed shuttered, its metal grate pulled tight. A handwritten note hung on the door: Closed for the safety of our community. Just down the street, a weekend lunch spot told customers online: Too dangerous today. Please stay home.

Hamas fans hate PIGS because PIGS are "haram" (i.e. unclean, forbidden, verboten) in Islam.

So do Jews.

Hindus hate hamburger meat

And MAGAs hate Biden, Obama and California.

Funny how we can see the hate in others more clearly than in ourselves.

A café known for empanadas and music stayed shuttered, its metal grate pulled tight.

I wonder if that was the same guy that was on the evening news. Besides talking about closing his restaurant, he waved his US passport at the camera, saying he feels he needs to carry it all the time, adding words to the effect "this is the United States, I'm not supposed to need to do that".

Welcome to the new Shinyland. I have been warning people to get their papers in order, for a few years now.

Steve

This sort of dehumanization tactic is typical of Nazis.

Thank you for confirming what the rest of us already know.

Here is a SMALL selection of Donald Trump quotes. My finger is aching from all the copy and pasting.


"We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

"In some cases they're not people, in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical Left says that's a terrible thing to say. These are animals, OK, and we have to stop it.”

“They’re scum and they want to take down our country. They are absolute garbage.”

“They’re poisoning the blood* of our country. That’s what they’ve done.”

“The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals.”

“Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from. … It’s poisoning the blood of our country.”

“In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion.”


* A Hitler favorite

Welcome to the new Shinyland. I have been warning people to get their papers in order, for a few years now.

I made copies of my wife's greencard and had her stick them in all of her purses. I have copies at home, in my computer and phone, and in my wallet, etc. If something happens it's better than nothing, but is actually worthless. I thought about applying for a Veteran's license plate as an extra layer of defense, but I'm convinced it's just numbers now. I'm better off lining up a good immigration attorney.

Yes, but Jews don't hate law enforcement and don't compare them to "pigs."

Honestly, do you have some kind of cognitive deficit?

Assuming he is a U.S. citizen, he is not required to carry his U.S. passport.

However, most normal law abiding citizens generally carry some form of official I.D.--either a state-issued driver's license or a non-driver's I.D. in lieu of a driver's license.

This is not a big deal, at all.

Not for law-abiding people, that is.

-either a state-issued driver's license or a non-driver's I.D. in lieu of a driver's license.

Problem is, a state driver's license, even a "real ID" license with a gold star on it, is not proof of citizenship. Some states issue driver's licenses to illegals.

From the net sifter:

Several states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. These licenses are often marked for federal purposes, meaning they cannot be used for federal identification or to board airplanes

I think that is a really bad idea. Smells like "aiding and abetting" to me. But, until that gets sorted out, you can't determine citizenship, or immigration status, from a driver's license.

Steve

Assuming he is a U.S. citizen, he is not required to carry his U.S. passport.

You haven't been following? If you look foreign they pick you up anyway. Proper ID is only good for white folks. There's a good chance your proper ID will be ignored if you aren't white and they'll let you out a few days later.

Steve,

Perhaps I assumed wrongly, but the person complaining about having to carry his U.S. passport around with him, was a U.S. citizen, was he not? (How would he have a U.S. passport if not a U.S. citizen?)

If he was NOT a U.S. citizen then he is required by law to have his green card with him at all times.

You leftists dehumanize law enforcement and endorse violence against law enforcement.

This has nothing at all to do with Trump.

Legally non-citizens are required to carry their original green card on their persons at all times.

Yes, but Jews don't hate law enforcement and don't compare them to "pigs."

Let’s unpack what you said

1. Muslims hate pigs.

2. 1960’s era hippies called the police “pigs”

3. Therefore liberals are Muslim lovers.

Or something.

And you wonder why we give you a hard time

You leftists dehumanize law enforcement and endorse violence against law enforcement.

140 injured Capitol Police would like a word……

Legally non-citizens are required to carry their original green card on their persons at all times.

Non responsive to anything in the post.

Really?

You have a state issued official driver's license or non-driver I.D. and you're saying ICE can't or doesn't verify identity based on that?

You sure about that?

How many U.S. citizens carry a valid state driver's license or non-driver's license I.D., and NOT HAVING COMMITTED any crimes such as interfering with an ICE operation, or assisting an illegal alien in evading capture, have been "held by ICE for several days"?

There would be lots of news reports about this sort of thing, wouldn't there?

You do realize a lot of ICE agents are themselves non-white, don't you?

Provide some examples please? Even 1?

The 9 car wash people detained a couple of weeks ago in Allston MA are all non-citizens and all in violation of some aspect of immigration law. That's why that particular story was quickly shoved down the memory hole and now you're spinning tales about something else.

So, this is all prompted by a U.S. citizen, with a U.S. passport, who doesn't think his state issued driver's license or I.D. is good enough. But we don't have enough information--does he even have a driver's license? We don't know.

wzambon,

Like I suspect, either you're cognitively impaired or you're deliberately leaving out inconvenient context.

I guess this is an improvement from your standard "ROAD APPLES" response.

wzambon,

You're unpacking your road apples.

If you say "Let's unpack what you said," and then you deliberately don't quote exactly what I said,
then you're just a liar.

Is that what you are?

Definitely cognitively impaired, or a liar, or both.

But, until that gets sorted out, you can't determine citizenship, or immigration status, from a driver's license.

Steve

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

Granted, but establishing identity is a necessary first step on whatever legal process that you are about to embark on.

Sure it's responsive.

You spent some time indicating you were going to have your wife put copies of her green card in her various purses, on your computer, etc.

Just reminding you that she needs to keep the original on her at all times if she is genuinely concerned about an interaction with ICE.

Since that is probably very unlikely, since she is in the country legally, is from the Phillipines, and is totally law abiding (unless she is one of those nut jobs who go to ICE facilities and interfere with their operations),
what are you actually crying and moaning about?

Stop this performative b.s. and phony claiming that you have any real concern about your spouse vis a vis immigration authorities, unless you know something that you're not sharing that would somehow cause your spouse to be a target.

Provide some examples please? Even 1?

How about 170? The article includes links to reports on specific incidents.

We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days.

https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs...

Steve

Problem is, a state driver's license, even a "real ID" license with a gold star on it, is not proof of citizenship.

It means that when you applied, you had valid presence within the country. That means there will be some paperwork on you. IDs for illegals isn't a bad idea to me, as long as it's marked.

bighairymike,

What the ProGlib social media types don't want to acknowledge is that ICE is (rather obviously) trying to target neighborhoods and some businesses that have disproportionately high percentages of illegal aliens vs. U.S. citizens or legal residents.

This is not at all shocking, it's just common sense and an efficient use of resources.

The perfect example is the I-9 raid at the Allston MA car wash a couple of weeks back. At first the MSM and the lawyer for the 9 illegals who were detained were trying to claim that they all had valid I.D.s in their work lockers and ICE wouldn't let the go to their lockers. Surprise, most recently their lawyer simply said "they are entitled to due process", not "they are in the U.S. and working in the U.S. validly." No news reports about these supposed valid working papers or green cards. You would think the lawyer could have gotten the I.D. out of their lockers by now.

It's a bunch of nonsense, really. Detaining people costs a lot of money and other resources and there is no earthly reason ICE would have to deliberately waste those resources. (Plus they would be subject to lawsuits.)

Besides, all legally present non-U.S.citizens are required to carry their green cards on their persons.

But if it's just U.S. citizens and they are concerned about being mistaken for an illegal alien, might that be because they are working with illegal aliens; assisting the illegal aliens to evade ICE enforcement; harboring illegal aliens; or what? Sure if you work at a car wash with a bunch of illegals, and you're worried you might be mistaken for one because obviously a place employing lots of illegals might be a target for ICE, then carry your passport, driver's license, or whatever.

What's the big deal?

You have a state issued official driver's license or non-driver I.D. and you're saying ICE can't or doesn't verify identity based on that?

Once again, you misstate. "You haven't been following? If you look foreign they pick you up anyway. Proper ID is only good for white folks. There's a good chance your proper ID will be ignored if you aren't white and they'll let you out a few days later."

I said, "There's a good chance your proper ID will be ignored if you aren't white and they'll let you out a few days later,"

What is it you think they are doing with these IDs? Could you state that for us?

Hey Steve,

I read that entire propublica article to the bitter end, but I didn't see anywhere that they cited a single judicial ruling that any of the people mentioned have been officially determined to have been unlawfully detained or arrested by ICE.

Maybe I missed it?

What the ProGlib social media types don't want to acknowledge is that ICE is (rather obviously) trying to target neighborhoods and some businesses that have disproportionately high percentages of illegal aliens vs. U.S. citizens or legal residents.

So you admit none of the targets are criminals. Thank you for that.

You spent some time indicating

that copies of IDS are worthless. So your post is non responsive to anything in the post.

Lapsody,

Again, why be so completely irrational?

I didn't admit (or fail to admit actually) as to the potential criminal status of any of the illegals being targeted by ICE.

Did you fail to understand that you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be in the United States illegally, and hence deportable?

Why don't you "look it up on A.I." and get back to me, after educating yourself?

Thanks bro.

Lambo,

I did. I responded that the original green card must be carried on the person of the legal resident at all times. Not copies.

If you tell me "The sky is green" and I respond "No, the sky is blue," I am being responsive to your ignorance.

You're welcome.

We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days. - Steve

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

Not bad for over 500,000 deportations. Not making excuses, but you have to admit that a 0.034% error rate, given the chaotic circumstances, is pretty damn good. And taking a few days to verify identity or other facts in a few cases is expected and necessary.

Also "detained for days" is a far cry short of the more sinister "disappeared" as your side often screams.

I read that entire propublica article to the bitter end, but I didn't see anywhere that they cited a single judicial ruling that any of the people mentioned have been officially determined to have been unlawfully detained or arrested by ICE.

Maybe I missed it?

Yes, you missed it. Is it lawful to detain an American citizen for immigration purposes? That was a short article btw.

"You leftists dehumanize law enforcement and endorse violence against law enforcement." - Marco the Clown

Yet another Trump cultist making a fool of himself accusing others of endorsing violence against law enforcement when his cult leader encouraged people to beat up on cops and then pardoned them for it.

I have never supported anyone who thinks violence against law enforcement is ok. You have. So you are just being an hypocritical clown.

"Besides, all legally present non-U.S.citizens are required to carry their green cards on their persons." - Marco the Clown

Still digging that hole deeper eh?

Do you like being laughed at? Mike does.

bighairymike,

Also, that propublica did not assert that there had been an actual judicial finding that any one of the alleged 170 unseemly detentions was actually illegal.

In that propublica article, in which specific case was there a judicial finding that the detention or arrest was illegal?

I mean this is the problem with ProGlibs.

You don't live in reality.

I did. I responded

I said the copies were worthless in THE ORIGINAL POST that you non responded to.

Umm,

You are yet another ProGlib who is not in touch with reality.

You allege that Trump encouraged people to beat up on law enforcement officers.

That's delusional or a flat out lie, since that never happened.

Umm,

Just because you apparently are O.K. with both legal and illegal aliens breaking the law, doesn't mean someone else is wrong for pointing out you enable lawlessness.

I didn't see anywhere that they cited a single judicial ruling that any of the people mentioned have been officially determined to have been unlawfully detained or arrested by ICE.

That article contains links to articles about specific cases.

Some people are rousted, but never charged with anything. Some the DoJ drops charges.

A U.S. citizen who was detained by immigration agents and accused of obstructing an arrest before her case was ultimately dismissed said she is still traumatized by what happened.

-----

Job Garcia, a Ph.D. student and photographer, said immigration agents tackled him and threw him to the ground for recording a raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles. He was held for more than 24 hours before his release.

-----

(here's a real laffer)

In June, a deputy U.S. marshal was briefly detained in the lobby of a federal building in Tucson, Arizona, because he “fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE,” the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-citizen-de...

That is just one link in the article I posted.

How long will it take for us to see any result from the civil suits for false arrest?

from the net sifter:

A wrongful arrest lawsuit can take several months to over a year or more to be decided, depending on whether it is settled or goes to trial. Many cases are settled out of court through negotiation, which can resolve the case in a shorter period, but if the case proceeds to trial, it will take much longer

It is way too soon for these cases to se a judicial ruling, but you knew that?

Steve

And taking a few days to verify identity or other facts in a few cases is expected and necessary.

Unless it happens to you. Then your take on the situation may change.

Steve

The copies are not "worthless." They could be of some use for identification purposes, subject to final verification with the original green card.

However, the law specifically says the original must be carried on the legal resident's person.

Steve,

I agree with your implied point that perhaps in the future, one or more of the detentions might be the subject of a judicial ruling as to whether they were proper or improper.

However, the other ProGlibs I was responding to didn't say what you just said, which I agree with by the way.

They said the ProPublica article ITSELF contained examples of judicial rulings finding one or more detentions to be illegal or invalid.

That, obviously, is both false and delusional.

"Until it happens to you."

Steve, are you arguing that ICE should have more resources so they can try to do a perfect job with this stuff?

Or are you arguing that the laws should not be enforced?

"Until it happens to you"--until you or a loved one is robbed or assaulted by an illegal immigrant, you won't take the issue seriously.

Also, that propublica did not assert that there had been an actual judicial finding that any one of the alleged 170 unseemly detentions was actually illegal.

They don't have to. A detention of an American citizen for immigration purposes is unlawful, unless there was something else - like obstruction, etc. So out of the 170, 50 were stated to have a something else, and all but 5 of the 50 had the charges dropped, the 5b were misdemeanors. At a minimum 120 were unlawfully detained, but it actually was 165. And no one keeps track of this so it could be a Sicilian or a Brazilian that this happened to. You could come up with better stuff, much harder to refute, but if you'd rather lie and obfuscate, watch out, your own obfuscation confuses you.

However, the law specifically says the original must be carried on the legal resident's person.

Sometimes, it doesn't matter. (another link from the Pro Publica article.)

“ I just felt people grabbing me and yanking me from all sides,” said Pena Salcedo, recalling the moment he was arrested. “ I didn’t even have a chance to think or speak or nothing. I gave them my passport, but they didn’t care. They just tossed me in a car and classified me as a USC (United States citizen).”

During the nearly three days he was in custody, Pena Salcedo said there was little food to eat, and having never been fully processed and booked, he was not allowed to receive funds from his family,

Pena Salcedo was released Monday morning.

https://lapublicpress.org/2025/06/70-hours-hell-de...

US citizen, with his US passport. Acknowledged as a US citizen by the arresting officers. Tossed in the lockup for 70 hours. The article does not say any formal charges were ever filed, or that he paid bail to be released.

Steve

The copies are not "worthless." They could be of some use for identification purposes, subject to final verification with the original green card.

However, the law specifically says the original must be carried on the legal resident's person. </1>

Your entire argument is worthless and unnecessary. Yes, they are worthless as you will be disappeared by ICE. If you read and understood the original post, that is why I gave her the copies. So you now agree 100% with the original post. Talking to you is worthless.

Steve, are you arguing that ICE should have more resources so they can try to do a perfect job with this stuff?

Absolutely. iirc, there was legislation in Congress to do just that, but someone wanted it buried.

from the net sifter:

The Bipartisan Border Security Bill of 2024, which did not pass, would have significantly restricted asylum while also providing funding for increased border enforcement personnel and technology, expediting deportations, and increasing the number of immigration judges. It proposed new emergency authority to close the border to migrants when crossings exceed certain levels and would have given the executive branch more power to quickly remove asylum seekers with limited screening. The bill also included provisions to combat fentanyl trafficking and provided funding for state and local governments to manage costs related to immigration

Or are you arguing that the laws should not be enforced?

I have been saying, for years, that so called "sanctuary cities/counties/states" are fundamentally wrong. If you don't like a law, don't ignore it, change it. That is how democracies are supposed to work.

Steve

Ok so we at least agree that there has as of right now been no judicial ruling that any of the 170 detentions or arrests has been ruled to be unlawful, or even improper. That could change in the future of course but we have to wait and see because everyone including ICE agents who you have already tried and convicted in your own head, is entitled to due process of law.

It's interesting that you believe you have the ability to render judgment in 170 cases based on a single pro publica article, without actually hearing any testimony or other evidence.

Since I believe in the rule of law, excuse me please if I wait for someone who is competent to rule on such cases to do so.

I have been saying, for years, that so called "sanctuary cities/counties/states" are fundamentally wrong. If you don't like a law, don't ignore it, change it. That is how democracies are supposed to work.

First, ICE got a huge boost in funding a little while ago on your point I didn't copy.

The so called "sanctuary cities/counties/states" are not fundamentally wrong. Trump wanted to coopt all the local police departments in areas into de fact ICE. They also wanted locals to retain anyone detained that may be illegal until they got there. Solving crime depends a lot on witnesses and people cooperating with law enforcement. IT REALLY DOES. (emphasis mine). And places that have good cooperation from communities that also contain illegals want that cooperation to continue, as everyone benefits from solved crimes and reduce. So 1. Trump wanted to coopt local police (who don't have immunity from a bad arrest, but ICE does), and 2. the affect on the community is some crime doesn't get reported and the solution rate goes down on the crime that is reported - sad but true. And some places would let ICE have released detainees, but ICE, when notified, weren't there to pick them up. Immigration is a Federal responsibility, not state.

Also,4. some areas and industries use undox labor and prices on food, etc, will rise. They are already rising now. And 3., if someone has been here for 40 years and doesn't have a criminal record, what's the point in deporting them?

Thanks for additional details about Salcedo, Steve.

I would fully expect Mr. Salcedo to express a viewpoint that is most favorable to his own position, especially if he has already or may possibly in the future contemplate filing a civil lawsuit.

However, in just the cursory information from the article that you quoted, it is obvious that Mr. Salcedo's own version is internally inconsistent.

On the one hand, he says: "I gave them my passport, but they didn't care." But then he contradicts himself immediately by stating that ICE correctly classified him as a U.S. citizen.

Obviously, ICE did take what information he provided, and interpreted that correctly. What he meant by saying "they didn't care" when he gave them the passport is unclear. They obviously accepted the passport as valid proof of his citizenship, so in fact, they "cared" about it.

In any event, a brief quote in a Pro Publica article, which, even if accepted at literal face value, shows that the ICE agents correctly accepted what information he was willing and able to give them--his passport--contradicts his own story of them not "caring." Additionally, he admits he gave them no further information about who he was or what he was doing at the scene. He has an excuse for that, but he admits he didn't talk to them. If he found himself in a riot-type situation and refused to answer any questions, or refused to provide any explanation for his presence, it's unclear how anyone would think they have enough information to render judgment, one way or the other.

This is probably lawful since he was released in under 72 hours and over a weekend.

Also, doing a little more googling, there is a better article with a lot more details in the lapublicpress.org. According to this article, apparently backed up by videos etc., Mr. Salcedo was walking past Jack's Car Wash at the time of an active immigration raid. As an unmarked ICE vehicle was pulling out of a driveway, Mr. Salcedo admittedly "walked in front of it. Videos circulating on social media show Pena Salcedo's instant reaction: his closed fist coming down on the hood of the vehicle."

So there you have it. That's potentially attempted assault; it is potentially attempting to interfere with ICE operations.

He was later quoted as saying that he "wanted to get their attention."

Well, he got exactly what he wanted.

70 hours in lock up, but without being charged with a crime (as he obviously could have been), sounds more than fair to Mr. Salcedo.

But again, since I won't pre-judge and we aren't in a position to know what all the evidence is, I'm happy to wait and see what a judge says if he proceeds with a civil lawsuit.

Every single one of these cause celebre anti-ICE stories ends up being much more complex and nuanced than is reported in the MSM or left wing fringe media.



He states he was detained for 70 hours before being released. This must have occurred on a Friday since he was "released Monday morning."

Lapsody,

I really don't understand your point here. First you say copies of the green card are worthless, but then you say "that's why I gave her copies of the green card."

Again, the copies aren't "worthless," they just don't fulfill the specific legal requirement. The fine for not having the green card is like $100, you don't get deported if you don't have it on your person.

Also, you don't actually give any example whatsoever of your spouse being in any way falsely accused, maltreated, or even having any actual contact with ICE or DHS.

Why do you think a law abiding phillipino with a valid green card has anything to worry about, other than sheer paranoia?

Has ICE been raiding companies that employ Phillipinos in your area? Like car washes?

What's your beef, specifically, if any?

Steve,

O.K. I agree with what you said.

Ok so we at least agree that there has as of right now been no judicial ruling that any of the 170 detentions or arrests

No, we do not agree. You want to hide behind "no court ruling".

The court ruled that Mr. Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Monroe County Sheriff Rick Ramsay illegally detained him in April 2018. Mr. Brown was held on an ICE immigration detainer, which had incorrectly identified Mr. Brown as a deportable Jamaican immigrant. The court’s ruling explains that ICE lacked probable cause to issue the detainer in the first place, and the Sheriff’s office could not rely on the detainer to ignore the obvious evidence that Mr. Brown was a citizen: “MCSO cannot abdicate its legal responsibility and turn a blind eye to this information.”

The decision comes amid increasing reports that ICE has arrested, detained, and even deported U.S. citizens as ICE engages in mass deportations. State police have done the same; in Florida, SB 4-C – which makes it a felony for certain undocumented people to enter the state based solely on their immigration history – put U.S. citizens at further risk of arrest and deportation. Last month, a U.S. citizen was wrongfully arrested under the law by local law enforcement who suspected he was undocumented, underscoring the dangers of immigration enforcement by local authorities and causing a federal judge to reiterate that enforcement of the law is currently prohibited because it is likely unconstitutional.

Quotes from co-counsel are as follows:

“We have seen the ICE detainer system fail time and again, but the County still chose to put Mr. Brown through this nightmare,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “At a moment in which we are seeing a raft of unlawful immigration arrests of citizens by federal and local authorities, this decision is a key reminder that the Fourth Amendment safeguards us all.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-....

Lambo,

Steve203 is absolutely correct in his post saying the whole sanctuary city thing is totally misguided/wrong.

There's something in the U.S. Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

States and local jurisdictions are subordinate to federal law. Period. This is very well established by the courts, there is no dispute.

It may be politically unfeasible, but strictly according to the law, the feds could arrest any state or local official who interferes with ICE operations; or who assists illegal aliens in evading federal law enforcement.

In fact a Judge I believe in Colorado but I may have the wrong state is currently under indictment for doing exactly that.

Also, we had this little kerfluffle called the Civil War which should have resolved this in your mind, but apparently, didn't.

Lambo,

Was Mr. Brown's case from 2018 one of the 170 cases referenced in the Pro Publica article?

Or, are you completely out of ammo?

What's your beef, specifically, if any?

I have no beef. Here's the original post

"Welcome to the new Shinyland. I have been warning people to get their papers in order, for a few years now.

I made copies of my wife's greencard and had her stick them in all of her purses. I have copies at home, in my computer and phone, and in my wallet, etc. If something happens it's better than nothing, but is actually worthless. I thought about applying for a Veteran's license plate as an extra layer of defense, but I'm convinced it's just numbers now. I'm better off lining up a good immigration attorney." END

In that post I'm thinking of her being detained, I'm not notified, and no one knows.

At this point I've pretty much decided you have difficulty understanding some things, and that you've probably had this all your life. My sympathies, but the way to get past that is to read and reread that post interpreting it in the writer's favor.

There's something in the U.S. Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

States and local jurisdictions are subordinate to federal law. Period. This is very well established by the courts, there is no dispute.

Correct. If you don't like a law, work through the system to change the law. Willfully ignoring it, or local officials obstructing enforcement, is "aiding and abetting".

Steve

Did your wife express any concern? Do you share location with her on your phones? Do you have air tags or something so you can track her if she is picked up?

There's something in the U.S. Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

States and local jurisdictions are subordinate to federal law. Period.

I stopped reading your post at this. The Supremacy Clause establishes the supremacy of Federal Law over State Law,where there is a conflict.

You don't seem to understand that. You need to understand the ramifications of that, and you don't. And here is the overview which I agree with.

AI Overview
No, states are not legally required to enforce federal immigration laws, as the Constitution grants the federal government the primary authority for immigration enforcement. While state and local police are not obligated to enforce immigration laws, they can choose to cooperate with federal authorities through specific agreements, such as the federal government's 287(g) program. Some states and cities have passed laws that limit this cooperation, leading to conflicts with federal policy.

No federal obligation: State and local police are not required to enforce federal immigration laws.
Optional cooperation: Federal law allows for agreements where state and local officials are trained and authorized to perform specific
immigration functions under federal supervision, like the 287(g) program.
State discretion: States can choose whether or not to enter into these cooperative agreements.
"Sanctuary" policies: Some states and cities have passed laws that restrict or prohibit their local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, which can create legal challenges.

So basically you are lecturing me on something you don't seem to understand, and I do have a good basic understanding of it, or at least did at one point. :)

Lapsody,

Quite a few actual attorneys have gotten in rather serious trouble for using A.I. to do their legal research for them.

You're obviously not an attorney, or you would know not to use A.I. to answer legal questions with your cocksure smug certainty.

You are the PERFECT example of why A.I. can be so dangerous: Morons thinking that having access to the internet makes them non-moronic, and actually making important decisions based on their compounding of their own ignorance and stupidity with unreliable A.I. searches.

Correct. If you don't like a law, work through the system to change the law. Willfully ignoring it, or local officials obstructing enforcement, is "aiding and abetting".

Steve

Steve, he's wrong and therefor you are too. Look at my response.

Steve, he's wrong and therefor you are too. Look at my response.

I did

"Sanctuary" policies: Some states and cities have passed laws that restrict or prohibit their local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, which can create legal challenges.

That is what I was talking about, so-called "sanctuary" laws.

Steve

Quite a few actual attorneys have gotten in rather serious trouble for using A.I. to do their legal research for them.

You're obviously not an attorney, or you would know not to use A.I. to answer legal questions

That's funny. I said I agreed with the AI, which means I read it and recognized it is correct. So let me tell you now, that you don't understand or know the Supremacy Clause and we discussed this same subject Trump's first term. The Supremacy Clause is about conflicts in the laws between the Federal Government and the States.

The Federal Government has full control of immigration in the Constitution, the states have little to say in it, but in practice are influential.

The conflict was that Trump wanted to coopt police in local areas. Take a look at the suit I posted, it was LOCAL POLICE that were being sued for violating 4th Amendment rights. And if you look at the AI Overview you'll see cooperating state agreements, and they also get suits for violating rights like the one I posted.

No, states don't have to enforce immigration laws, but they can make agreements. A state deciding not to cooperate is within its prerogative to do so.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

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