ICE members understand that what they're doing is wrong to not want it recorded, yet they go out of their way to do it anyway like running up to knock down people just recording them. The reason for that is obvious, they understand they can get away with anything they do. It's the behavior of people thoroughly corrupted by power.
They are subject to rules and regulations as other government agents.
They do not operate within the same legal framework as regular police because ICE is supposed to deal with administrative law, not criminal law. This means the "rules and regulations" they operate by are opaque, extremely open to subjective interpretation, and can be revised whenever they feel like it. Their "judges" are part of the executive branch, their regulations are devised within the executive branch, and their oversight is within the executive branch. In short they're an organization that operates without any checks or balances from the states, the legislature, or the judiciary. An extremely unAmerican organization that the founding fathers would have vehemently opposed the creation of, as they knew full well the tyrannical abuses an armed force only beholden to the executive can cause.
They do not operate within the same legal framework as regular police because ICE is supposed to deal with administrative law, not criminal law. This means the "rules and regulations" they operate by are opaque, extremely open to subjective interpretation, and can be revised whenever they feel like it. Their "judges" are part of the executive branch, their regulations are devised within the executive branch, and their oversight is within the executive branch. In short they're an organization that operates without any checks or balances from the states, the legislature, or the judiciary. An extremely unAmerican organization that the founding fathers would have vehemently opposed the creation of, as they knew full well the tyrannical abuses an armed force only beholden to the executive can cause.
Look up Arizona v. United States. Then you will see why they have more authority than usual.
they're an organization that operates without any checks or balances from the states, the legislature, or the judiciary.
And yet I hear about judges making all sorts of rulings about what ICE can and can't do, most obviously Katherine Menendez deciding that ICE agents just have to ignore activists following them around. So you can say that there are no checks, but it just doesn't sound true.
And yet I hear about judges making all sorts of rulings about what ICE can and can't do, most obviously Katherine Menendez deciding that ICE agents just have to ignore activists following them around. So you can say that there are no checks, but it just doesn't sound true.
Are you seriously protesting judges trying to impose that a US government agency Conduct itself according to the US Constitution?
Are you seriously protesting judges trying to impose that a US government agency Conduct itself according to the US Constitution?
No, my intention was to point out that I can think of at least one instance of the judicial acting as a check. But to answer your question: The way your question is phrased, in isolation, no. As for this particular case I don't know if that ruling was right or if the constitution covers this particular kind of protest. I don't think the constitution was written by people who would be opposed to what ICE is doing, I absolutely support the right to protest the government, but I think a lot of this protestation constitutes harassment even when it doesn't veer into outright obstruction, and I think this particular protestation is intended as obstruction. If a protestor drives around behind ICE cars honking incessantly, it would likely make it rather more difficult for them to catch the people they're supposed to catch, for example. And if I protested against this judge the way these protesters protest ICE, I'd expect to go to jail immediately.
@bunkhead: That because AlsoSprachOdin is a facist.
And everything that oppose his facist wetdream bother him.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". That's fascism. Immigration control on the other hand has been a normal part of every nation state for the vast majority of history, whether monarchist, theocratic or republican (in the original meaning of the word) or whatever. Just look at how no one called Obama a fascist when children were put in cages under his administration and he gave Tom Homan a medal for deporting just SO many people. Or when Pakistan deported around 1.7 million Afghans two or three years ago. Please stop conflating everything you don't like with fascism or national socialism. We need these words for people who actually support ultranationalist, totalitarian political systems.
AlsoSprachOdin said in comment #2576240: Immigration control on the other hand has been a normal part of every nation state for the vast majority of history
As I said before, this isn't about immigration control. ICE's goal is to instill enough fear into the populace and state governments that they won't oppose Trump taking over the country in a fascist coup.
Just look at how no one called Obama a fascist when children were put in cages under his administration and he gave
Obama went through the courts, he gave the deportees due process, he treated them like HUMAN BEINGS WITH RIGHTS. These fuckfaces don't - they enter people's homes on bogus charges without proper warrants, they beat citizens, they kill citizens, they insult citizens, they kidnap children and use them as bait, they wear masks and refuse to identify themselves. The men who beat Alex Pretti have not been identified and could be out there right now.
Please stop conflating everything you like with the work of lawful procedure.
As I said before, this isn't about immigration control. ICE's goal is to instill enough fear into the populace and state governments that they won't oppose Trump taking over the country in a fascist coup.
Obama went through the courts, he gave the deportees due process, he treated them like HUMAN BEINGS WITH RIGHTS. These fuckfaces don't - they enter people's homes on bogus charges without proper warrants, they beat citizens, they kill citizens, they insult citizens, they kidnap children and use them as bait, they wear masks and refuse to identify themselves. The men who beat Alex Pretti have not been identified and could be out there right now.
Please stop conflating everything you like with the work of lawful procedure.
Hey stupid. Then explain in the other states that ICE operations are running smoothly and the only state that is giving ICE trouble is the one with the massive fraud? 🤔
bunkhead said: ICE's goal is to instill enough fear into the populace state governments that they won't oppose Trump taking over the country in a fascist coup.
I don't see how the state governments would be intimidated by immigrant deportations (unless of course they want these immigrants for democrat votes, but surely they couldn't have such ulterior motives, right?). I think you'd have to target the state leadership instead, and Tim Waltz only came into the crosshairs after the fraud scandal and the seeming state support for organized obstruction.
bunkhead said in comment #2576253: Please stop conflating everything you like with the work of lawful procedure.
Oh I'd never suggest that what's good is necessarily lawful and vice versa. I absolutely approve of disobeying the law if, say, widow burning is the law in question. I'm sure you too support illegal actions, only in support of mass immigration, just as pictures like these support killing ICE agents. So if these same fuckfaces Obama employed are actually acting more aggressively now, it's probably because the conditions they work under are extremely different from before. In Minneapolis there is completely unprecedented, organized obstruction to their work, and they know that there are millions of people who want them dead. When people then drive recklessly in their direction, or resist arrest and then their guns go off in the scuffle, more shit than usual will happen.
I swear you people have no idea what a fascist actually is, first off, fascists wouldn't be deporting people, they'd be straight up shooting them, no questions asked, you want a example of a actual fascist?, there's this little known individual named Adolf Hitler, who rounded up and killed Jews because they didn't fit his description as the "perfect race", didn't matter if they were kids or elderly, any Jew was killed, so i want you to think VERY carefully when throwing that word around, because it has a very bad history tied to a very, very bad man, and throwing it around all willy nilly is extremely offensive, especially to those facing actual fascists like what's going on in Iran right now and those who actually survived Hitler's genocide
At this point, I feel the pendulum has swung the other way; that people are using what was once a reasonable caution against using words overly broadly to shut down any discussion of things that don't meet some hyper-specific standard. Let's take a look at how the dictionary actually defines fascism:
1. oftenFascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
You can argue that not all of the criteria in the first definition fit, but the second definition still applies. Just because we're not yet at the point of killing any and all dissenters doesn't mean we're not headed in that direction. This isn't like cities banning trans fats, where using fascism in that context would definitely be ridiculous.
You are absolutely right that words like "fascism" should not be overused, and the fact that your appeal to political correctness to dismiss these warning signs could be taken seriously at all is a good reason why.
I don’t know where you got the fact that I’m being “politically correct” but I’m saying the fact that the word is being thrown around so freely is extremely disrespectful to those who have experienced what true facisism is like, and frankly, it’s tiring to hear it over and over again, eventually, it’s going to lose it’s meaning, and nobodies going to take the word seriously anymore, and when a actual facsist comes to be, everyone’s going to roll their eyes at it and think people are just using the word again for attention
Interesting how you only care about the watering-down of a term when people correctly point out what your great glorious leader is doing, but were completely fine with it when Trump was calling Harris a fascist.
How do you know he was fine with that particular instance? It seems like you're making an assumption.
I'm not going to give the benefit of a doubt to someone who is trying very hard to deny that Trump's actions are fascist and whose definition of fascism is so narrow it could only ever apply to the Nazis.
bunkhead said in comment #2576731: I'm not going to give the benefit of a doubt to someone who etc...
It seems more like giving someone the disadvantage of prejudice, and a rather narrow prejudice at that. The guy is clearly very opposed to fascism while disagreeing with the notion of applying the term to Trump, so he's not some far-right OR far-left caricature incapable of nuance. And having a narrow definition of fascism is hardly such a terrible sin. So I think it's a bit unreasonable not to give him some benefit.
Leave a comment