Sickening ICE Actions
Watch Bovino, head of Border Patrol's racial profiling operation, approach a random Hispanic guy at what looks like a bus stop and demand to know if he speaks English. It is absolutely dystopian what is happening out there.
https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/19904 … 67326?s=20As I said, it is now a crime to be Brown in Trump's dystopian America.
Not a crime to be brown, but it's not like snowy white Icelanders have been flooding across our southern border.....
The ridiculous claim that had Obama and Biden (but not Trump) done their jobs and removed 100% of the 20,000,000 undocumented immigrants then, lol, Trump wouldn't be terrorizing America today trying to remove them!
That line of reasoning is absurd on its face.
1. Why was Trump 1.0 exonerated? That destroys any possible logic.
2. The 20 million is a bogus number to start with
-- Reagan: Decreased unauthorized aliens by about 1 million by legalizing many of them. But is positive inflow was about 200k a year
-- Bush I: Increased about 1.25 million with an approximate influx of 475 K per year. Ending with 4.75 million
-- Clinton: Increased about 4.5 million with an influx of roughly 550 K per year. Ending with 8.75 million
-- Bush II: Increased about 2.75 million with an influx of about 350 K per year, Ending with 11.25 million.
-- Obama: Decreased about .8 million with an OUTFLOW of about 100 K per year. Ending with 10.5 million
-- Trump 1.0: Net change is basically ZERO. Ending with 10.5 million*
-- Biden: Increased about 4.25 million. Inflow roughly. Inflow roughly 1 million a year. Ending with 14.25 million.*
- Trump 2.0: Decreased .5 million maybe. Outflow 500 per year. Ending with 13.75 million so far.
* COVID suppressed Trump 1.0 numbers and increased Biden numbers.
3. Fantastical expectations that ANY president can get 100% of the undocumented out of the country which makes the logic nonexistent.
4. Doesn't give credit to Obama for being the ONLY president to end up with less undocumented at the end of his term than with what he started. (It remains to be seen if Trump does any better).First, your numbers are bogus, and have little to do with reality for they are telling only part of the story (pretty common today).
Second, You misrepresented the point about Trump's work, I assume intentionally. Nevertheless, I'll repeat it with additional wording. Had Biden, Obama and the rest done their job, Trump would not have the virtual armies out doing the job they refused to do. He would not have so many illegals to deal with and, had we deported them on a regular basis, would not have the idiotic "sanctuary" areas. Nor would he have the idiots and fools rioting and fighting enforcement of the law, for it would have been common practice for decades.
But they didn't do that. They refused adequate border security, including the wall that is proving so effective. Obama got rid of millions by illegally making them a lower class citizen. Biden brought them in and hid them. Trump is not fighting merely the illegals, but previous presidents that took it upon themselves to ignore their sworn duties and allow it to happen. That Trump is not following their example is to his enormous credit, not something evil and wrong.You went of track with "Had Biden, Obama and the rest done their job, "
Why didn't you write "Had Obama, Trump, Biden and the rest done their job ..." By omitting Trump you lose all creditability.
You didn't even acknowledge that Obama reduced the undocumented population. That also pokes holes in your credibility.
You implied that each president before Trump 2.0, including Trump 1.0, could have and should have done the impossible and removed 100% of the undocumented.
Worse, you deflect to other's actions or inactions to justify Trump 2.0's terrorism of American citizens rather than address that head on.
How is one supposed to take your reasoning seriously?“How is one supposed to take your reasoning seriously?”
That is just it, you don’t……..Gross exaggerations ("terrorism of American citizens") does your argument no good at all. Instead it turns your entire post into nothing but garbage, such as pretending that Obama did a good job eliminating illegal aliens...while he illegally gave permission to millions to stay here.
Ask the citizens, let alone the innocent undocumented immigrants who have jobs and pay taxes, in LA, Chicago, D.C., Charlotte, Nashville if they don't feel terrorized by Trump's version of the Gestapo.
1. Daycare raid in front of toddlers
In Chicago this month, ICE agents entered a Spanish-immersion preschool with guns to detain a teacher, “Miss Diana,” in front of very young children.
Parents described kids watching an adult they trusted being tackled and dragged out, with one mother writing that “this kind of trauma lasts” and that children are now frightened of uniforms and loud knocks.
Why it feels like terror to families:
They sent their kids to daycare and instead got a militarized arrest inside a school, with no regard for the psychological impact on toddlers.
2. “We’re never going to feel safe” – even after becoming a citizen
In North Carolina, a woman who recently became a U.S. citizen told CBS News that, despite doing everything “the right way,” she and her family still live in fear amid ICE raids in their area.
Her quote: “We’re never going to feel safe.” The raids have spread from one city to another and people in mixed-status communities are afraid to go out or answer the door.
Why it feels like terror:
Even people who escaped immigration precarity say the constant presence of raids and stories of wrongful arrests means they live with a baseline sense of threat.
3. U.S. citizens wrongly grabbed off the street or at work
Portland, Oregon (Oct 2025): Frank Miranda, a U.S. citizen born in California, was stopped outside work by plainclothes officers, handcuffed, put in an unmarked vehicle, and taken to an ICE facility after they claimed he’d “overstayed” a visa he never had. He was held for hours and released only after asserting his citizenship repeatedly.
Alabama (2025): Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S-born citizen and construction worker, was twice arrested by immigration agents and is now suing, saying his detentions were “unreasonable” and violated the Fourth Amendment.
A broader investigation found more than 170 U.S. citizens detained by immigration agents in a single year, often held incommunicado so their families had no idea where they were.
Why it feels like terror:
When citizens are grabbed, cuffed, and disappeared into detention by people who misidentify them, everyone who “looks like” them (or lives with them) learns that paperwork doesn’t guarantee safety.
4. Parents taken on the way to pick up kids or go to work
In Washington state, Brazilian dad Guilherme “Gui” Silva was detained by ICE while driving to pick up his 4-year-old daughter. His pregnant U.S.-citizen wife described him being “aggressively apprehended” without a warrant, chained, and taken to detention despite no criminal record, while she’s left alone and nearly due.
In other raids, people are arrested en route to work or outside job sites, creating “ghost town” communities where immigrant workers are suddenly gone and everyone else is afraid to leave home.
Why it feels like terror:
From the family’s perspective, an ordinary day (going to work, picking up a child) can turn into a disappearance, with kids coming home to find a parent simply… not there.
Even I live in fear of Trump's Gestapo and I am white.There has been ample opportunity for ILLEGALS to make things right. If they haven't by now --- it's on them.
But those aren't Trump's targets anymore. Very few of those he is TERRORIZING are undocumented immigrants, many of whom were legal before Trump claimed they weren't.
Remember when Donald "the felon" Trump LIED to you that he was only going after the "worst of the worst"? Guess you don't mind being lied to.
"Ask the citizens, let alone the innocent undocumented immigrants who have jobs and pay taxes, in LA, Chicago, D.C., Charlotte, Nashville if they don't feel terrorized by Trump's version of the Gestapo."
1) Why are citizens terrorized by police chasing criminals? Do they fear being shot by accident if they riot to stop the law?
2)There ARE no "innocent, undocumented immigrants". None. Zero. Every one (barring children) has committed at least one crime per day since the crime of illegally crossing our border. Best that they are afraid (not "terrorized" as you like to exaggerate); perhaps they will avail themselves of the still available $1,000 check to go home voluntarily.
We have criminal day cares hiring more criminals to care for our children? Now, just who is to blame for that? Trump?
Venegas is suing. That's nice; come back when he wins his case.
Do you expect Silva's wife to describe his arrest any other way? Should he be left alone with his life of crime because he's married? Or because he has children? We don't do that for any other criminals...
Creating ghost towns, eh? Guess Biden and Obama did not even attempt to do their job when whole towns are illegal aliens.
Yep. Kids come home and find their criminal parent(s) gone. Happens every day of every month to children of criminals. Shall we now let all criminals go free, or just the brown ones (your racist portrayal, not mine)?Because the police are chasing them simply because their skin is brown and not criminals
You have proof of this, of course - no doubt secret ICE documents giving the order.
All of us here would LOVE to see those documents. Would you be so kind as to produce them?
You remember the case of Marimar Martinez’s who many of you claimed as an illegal alien (she was an American citizen) who was charged with felonies for "ramming" a federal vehicle which many of you swore up and down that she did? Not only that, the agents shot at her for no good reason and then boasted about it.
Well, she didn't ram their car, they rammed hers!!! They simply lied to the judge about that. Finally, that circus act called DHS was forced to drop their case against Martinez.
Hope she sues the gov't and each one who lied for a billion dollars for what Trump put her through.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/us/marim … at-we-knowThe Catholic Church is now condemning Trump's terrorism in major cities and elsewhere of brown people. Fox News appears to agree because they didn't appear to try to twist the Pope's words in this story.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-leo- … respectfulThe Catholic Church complains any time we take action against criminals of any kind. I will listen to them AFTER they have opened the walls to Vatican City and are supporting anyone that has wandered in.
Not that she probably gives a damn, but the Sickening ICE actions finally got personal to one of Trump's girls,
"Woman with family ties to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt arrested by ICE" - The woman is Leavitt's sister-in-law who was once engaged to Leavitt's brother.
"Bruna Caroline Ferreira, a Brazil native and the mother of Leavitt’s nephew, was arrested near Boston on November 12, her attorney, Todd Pomerleau, told CNN.
Ferreira’s attorney said she was a former recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which grants temporary protection from deportation for those brought to the US as children.
She was unable to renew her status a few years ago during President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the program during his first administration, but is currently in the middle of a “lawful immigration process” for US citizenship, Pomerleau said."
Another legal immigrant is kidnapped by ICE. Watch to see if Trump lets her go.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/26/politics … ed-ice-hnkFacts show ---- Based on what has been reported, Bruna Caroline Ferreira was arrested by ICE on November 12 in Revere, Massachusetts, after officials stated she had overstayed a tourist visa that expired in 1999. Public records also show that she is currently being held in ICE custody in Louisiana and is now in removal proceedings while awaiting a bond hearing. Her attorney has confirmed her arrest and says she previously had DACA protection and was working toward legal residency, but there is no public documentation showing she appeared in court prior to this arrest, nor is there any confirmed criminal conviction on record. The only verified facts available at this point are her long-expired visa, her arrest by ICE, the ongoing removal process, and her lawyer’s statements disputing ICE’s claims about a prior battery arrest.
It should be easy for her attorney to prove she has previously been working with immigration on solving her alleged illegal status.I believe that all of that is irrelevant; her attorney has made a statement that she is here illegally but trying to make it legal for the past 6 years. Ice has therefore kidnapped her (because she has only had 6 years to correct the problem) and should be jailed for such a vile action.
My point if what her atty says is true, that she was working on it, it would be easy to prove with documentation, and as you said, 6 years is a long time. Thus far looks as if she has no legal claim to stay in the US.
That thought hit me too - where is the documentation she has been filing/working on for the last 6 years? I also question that tourist visa that expired in 1997 - that's a LOT more than 6 years!
Wouldn't you believe her attorney over ICE which has no history of telling the truth?
And I would say "Thus far it makes sense she has a legal claim to stay in the US." Why didn't ICE check (not that it would have made ANY difference) instead of knee-jerk action?
I am glad I researched this before responding - I learned a couple of things, none of which make me feel good about the American justice system. In any case, the bottom line is this:
"“Legally, ICE does have the power to detain someone who overstayed a visa, even if they’re now in a lawful process to fix it. That’s why her lawyer can say she’s in a ‘lawful immigration process’ and DHS can also say she’s here illegally. What’s really disturbing is that our system doesn’t give people any automatic protection just for trying to regularize their status — they’re still deportable until they win. That may be legal, but it’s pretty hard to call it fair.”"
If that is the case, what I don't understand is why those judges, clerks, and other administrators who process these lawful claims aren't getting arrested for aiding and abetting criminals by not immediately turning them over to ICE upon learning these people are trying to fix an error.
America has done many, many shameful things in its past and today - this just adds to the count.
You’re exactly right to focus on the visa history, because that is the single biggest factor that determines whether someone could ever have been eligible for DACA.
Here’s the key point:
✅ If she entered the U.S. on a B-2 tourist visa, she cannot have been a DACA-eligible child entrant.
To qualify for DACA, a person must have:
Entered the United States before turning 16, AND
Entered without inspection (illegal entry) or
Overstayed a visa as a minor, AND
Lived continuously in the U.S. since 2007, AND
Been present in the U.S. on the DACA announcement date in 2012.
What the reports say:
DHS/ICE stated publicly she entered the U.S. on a B-2 tourist visa and was required to leave by June 1999.
A person who entered as a tourist on a visa was not brought in by parents without documentation — the scenario that DACA was designed for.Nice to see our government law enforcement working to enforce our laws without regard to who it is. Not like Biden pardoning his own son for crimes committed, right?
If only we could replace Trump with another behaving like that. Would you consider Jared Kushner?I agree with you — it really is good to see law enforcement doing its job the way it’s supposed to, without worrying about who the person is. That’s how the system should work.
As for Jared Kushner, from what I’ve seen of him so far, I actually like quite a bit of what he brings to the table. I’d still want to do a deeper dive before saying anything definitive, but he’s someone I’d be open to looking at more seriously.Until you’re willing to say Trump should be arrested for the laws he’s broken, your outraged complaints are nothing more than partisan rhetoric, not a principled stand on the rule of law.
This illustrates the hypocrisy of the democrat party. They don't care about illegal aliens. They only care about hurting the country and the president.
Mike, in my view, the Democrats have one agenda, the same one they’ve had for many years, and that is to bring down Donald Trump. I believe he truly loves this country and is willing to endure anything they throw at him while continuing to fight and point out the truth. To me, this party does not care about America or its people. They have nothing to offer in terms of an American, democratic agenda and are working hard to destroy the country. At this point, I can honestly say that anyone who doesn’t see this is either brainwashed, has TDS, or both.
Oh, and by the way --- Happy Thanksgiving!The difference, as I hope you are aware, is that Clinton, Bush, and Obama DIDN'T TERRORIZE America doing it. That was why they had ZERO PROTESTS/RIOTS.
On this we certainly agree; the primary objective of the Democrat party is to remove Donald Trump from politics. Nothing else is nearly as important, nothing else requires the effort or resources as getting rid of Trump.
People are but pawns in their struggle here - encouraging our soldiers to disobey orders is a good example, particularly when there were no illegal orders they could point to that should be disobeyed.The Democratic Party... the Progressive Left that is taking control of it...
Wants power... wants to destroy the nation state... wants total control over what you can own and what you can say... they want the USA to become the CCP.
In order for them to accomplish that, we are going to have to go thru similarly extreme situations as what China went thru... millions dead... millions rotting away in camps... until the Party has complete control of the State.
The Progressive Left is not based on facts and reality... they can't tell you what a woman is, they can't tell you how many sexes there are, they can tell you feelings trump facts, and that you are a fascist if you do not accept their ideology.
It really is simple as that... we have an enemy within and it is akin to a cancer that has spread to every vital organ of the Nation.
You stepped into this one.
The difference, as I hope you are aware, is that Clinton, Bush, and Obama DIDN'T TERRORIZE America doing it. That was why they had ZERO PROTESTS/RIOTS.If terror is being spread it is because illegal aliens will soon be sent home. There is no possible reason for Americans to be afraid, and certainly no reason to be "terrified".
There were no reason for the Jews to be terrified under Hitler, was there.
A point has to be made that the difference is certainly not of a partisan nature but is focused on Trump and his methods. So it is not even Republican Party as they once were ; GW Bush, but Trump specifically.
You are mistaken.
The people were detained just as they are now.
The laws and methods of enforcing immigration haven't changed.
WOW!!!
At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration’s new policy, which also deprives people of an opportunity to seek release from an immigration court, is a likely violation of law and the right to due process. Those judges were appointed by all modern presidents — including 23 by Trump himself — and hail from at least 35 states, according to a POLITICO analysis of thousands of recent cases. The number of judges opposing the administration’s position has more than doubled in less than a month.
In contrast, only eight judges nationwide, including six appointed by Trump, have sided with the administration’s new mass detention policy.
But the hypocritical Right cares not about how many laws Trump breaks.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/2 … y-00669861Donald "the pathological liar" Trump does it again - lie that is.
"President Donald Trump is blaming the Biden administration for this week’s shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, DC, in part by insisting that the suspect, a 29-year-old Afghan, was among millions of foreigners Biden allowed into the US without proper vetting."
THAT WAS A LIE for political and personal purposes. In fact, the shooter was vetted MANY, MANY times over the span of 10 years. One of the last times was when Trump gave him refugee status!!!
What is another LIE that got Sarah Beckstrom killed? How about "‘out of control,’ with young ‘thugs’ and ‘gang members’ who are ‘randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens.’” when crime was actually declining.
Why wasn'n Sarah in Huntington or Charleston, WV where crime is 61% higher than in D.C.? Maybe because those are Red cities and can do no wrong.
You simply cannot believe a word this poor excuse of a man says.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/politics … s-scrutinyDonald "the felon" Trump and DHS DEFY THE COURT AGAIN -
"College freshman is deported flying home for Thanksgiving surprise, despite court order"
They need to be held accountable for their illegal actions once on HONEST DOJ is rebuilt.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/29/us/colle … anksgivingWhat we NEED is to get rid of activist judges forming orders from ideology instead of the law.
You are right - it is very Unamerican to follow the law. If you do, you are considered an 'activist judge".
If ICE had a valid final removal order from 2015, that alone gives them legal authority to detain and deport.
I feel that before anyone can fairly judge whether this deportation was unjustified or legally defensible, we need much more than lawyers’ claims or ICE’s brief statements. I would want to see the original 2015 removal order itself, including proof of how and when it was served, along with the full docket history showing what it means that the case was “closed” in 2017. I’d also need the actual text of the emergency stay issued in November, the custody-transfer logs, and any communication between ICE and the court about that order. Without these documents, the entire situation remains in a factual gray area. The reporting is credible, but solid documentation is needed to really understand what happened here and whether the government overstepped or simply enforced an old ruling.
Free beer anyone?
Idaho Bar is Offering Free Beer for Assisting ICE
Idaho bar owner Mark Fitzpatrick said his saloon has been flooded with both praise and outrage after a promotion offering "free beer" to anyone who helps Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) identify and deport an illegal immigrant went viral.
The Old State Saloon’s promotion, which was posted Nov. 29 on X, was viewed nearly 8 million times. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also reposted it, generating both excitement and online attacks, including threats to burn down the business and kill its outspoken owner.
"At Old State Saloon, we really aren't strangers to speaking out boldly about conservative Christian values and truth and putting the truth out there," Fitzpatrick told Fox News Digital, adding that speaking in a world with "deception" and "evil" causes people to get "really upset."
Fitzpatrick said his bar’s first controversial promotion came in 2024 when he launched "Heterosexual Awesomeness Month," featuring discounts and free beer for heterosexual men, women and couples throughout June in response to Pride Month.
The saloon owner said his latest idea was inspired by four years of former President Joe Biden's immigration policies, describing them as a "complete disaster" that incentivized "some of the worst of the worst people in the world to come into this country."
While his promotion was meant to promote the efforts of law enforcement and ICE, Fitzpatrick said it was quickly attacked online, and the saloon has posted several social media exchanges this week with individuals strongly disagreeing with its conservative ideology.
"What liberals want to do is they attack you," he said. "They go on attack and they start calling you names."
Fitzpatrick said his family has been threatened, and he has received "disgusting" messages and voicemails, including threats to torch his saloon.
"People are just outright saying I should die for this," he said. "It's really, really despicable."
Fitzpatrick urged anyone dismissing his promotion to visit his bar, asserting that "if any of those liberals actually came in and were willing to talk," they would meet someone who "would sit down with them and talk and listen to what they have to say."
Fitzpatrick remains unfazed, saying the negative comments only make him want to "double down." His saloon has also continued to offer new promotions throughout the month, including "Manly American Monday," where men who support ICE get a free beer just for walking through the door.
The bar also offers free beer on Tuesdays to ladies who "tattle" on illegal immigrants by calling ICE, along with a Wednesday special shaving 10% of the bill for heterosexual couples.
"The way I look at it is they're kind of disclosing like their wickedness right to us in public and showing us who they are," Fitzpatrick said in reference to the online attacks and threats he's received.
Fitzpatrick has also received "overwhelming support," including encouraging mail and cards, amid the negativity and threats.
"At my saloon when I'm there after a long day of dealing with just wickedness and all the calls and everything else, people are there and they're there just to come in and meet me and support me and encourage me," he said.
Fitzpatrick does not expect many patrons to claim their freebie, but he did say that Ryan Spoon, vice chair of the Ada County Republican Central Committee in Idaho, claimed his after he provided evidence that he helped ICE make an arrest.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-bar-ow … isting-iceHonestly, I think what this bar owner is doing is great, and it’s about time we see some common-sense support for ICE. People forget that we have millions of migrants in the country illegally for one reason or another, and ICE is simply doing the job we rely on them to do, enforcing the laws that already exist.
What really stands out to me is how quickly people jump to outrage instead of having a real conversation. Threatening a man’s business or his family because he supports law enforcement is absolutely unacceptable. Agree or disagree with his approach, at least he’s taking a stand instead of pretending the border crisis doesn’t exist.
And let’s be honest, nothing about this promotion forces anyone to do anything. It’s symbolic support for the agency tasked with handling a crisis that’s grown completely out of control. If anything, it highlights just how bad the situation has become under current policies.
So yes, I think it’s refreshing to see someone willing to speak openly, even if it ruffles feathers. We need more people who aren’t afraid to acknowledge reality instead of burying it under political correctness.So we are celebrating bigotry, racism, and homophobia right out in the open. Congrats. Is that Trump's America? Ugliness?
"So we are celebrating bigotry, racism, and homophobia right out in the open. Congrats. Is that Trump's America? Ugliness?" ECO
What? That doesn’t make sense at all. We’re simply recognizing that migrants are required to follow our immigration laws, and if someone chooses to ignore those laws and stay here illegally, then the proper authorities, Immigration Customs Enforcement officers, funded by us as citizens, are responsible for detaining them, making sure that they have due process, and deporting them when necessary. That’s how the system is designed to work.
Your view feels driven by emotion rather than by what the law actually requires. This has nothing to do with bigotry, racism, or homophobia. It’s about our sovereignty and the basic expectation that guests in our country follow our laws.
Trump's agenda is to remove anyone who does not belong here legally.You would think it wouldn't need to be explained, over and over and over.....
Angie, you would think it wouldn’t need to be explained over and over, but unfortunately, it does. A lot of this comes down to a fundamental difference in mindset about what law enforcement is supposed to be.
Some people look at immigration laws as optional guidelines, not actual laws passed by Congress that agencies like ICE are required to enforce. When someone starts from the belief that the law shouldn’t be enforced, we are in trouble. One must ask what laws will be discarded next?
ICE isn’t inventing laws — it’s carrying out the laws that already exist.
There should be nothing controversial about enforcing laws.
One does not have to agree with every policy to recognize that a country can’t function if laws are treated as optional. ICE doing its job is not radical; refusing to accept the necessity of enforcing laws is what’s irrational.
Heterosexual Awareness Month! Really! What a dog whistle.
And that isn't his first insult
“This wasn’t a one-off slip. Before the later remarks, Fitzpatrick had already launched ‘Heterosexual Awesomeness Month’ in June 2024 to counter Pride, used hostile framing about the ‘LGBTQ agenda’ on social media, and sold ‘Make America Straight Again’ merch — all of which shows a consistent pre-existing posture.”Why can't heterosexuals be proud of their sexual identity?
I think it's about time. I hope someone lobbies Congress to make it an official recognition month.
If it weren't for heterosexuals homosexuals would not exist. There would be no pride month without heterosexuals.
I think it's time for recognition.They can be, but this isn't that. I realize you are not aware of this, but those "recognition" months are about those oppressed and marginalized groups that the majority has discriminated against forever.
We recognize Mother's Day because without mothers none of us would be here. It is the same with Father's Day. Heterosexual Month should be recognized as the reason anyone in our society exists today. Heterosexuals should be honored for their contributions to society such as keeping society existing. It only seems right.
I don’t agree with the blanket assumption behind it. Saying these designated months are only for “oppressed and marginalized groups the majority has discriminated against forever” oversimplifies a lot. Not every recognition month today is rooted purely in historical oppression, and not every group that gets one is currently marginalized in the way you’re implying.
And when we’re talking about giving an entire month to sexual orientation, that’s not the same thing as recognizing the struggles of an ethnic minority or a group denied basic rights under law. Most people today aren’t discriminating against anyone based on their private life, and the country has already moved toward legal protections and equal treatment. So pretending that current society is uniformly hostile doesn’t reflect the full picture.
What I’m questioning is the logic of assigning a month for any group based solely on identity, especially when the justification is becoming broader and broader. At some point, it stops being about addressing real, present-day inequality and turns into symbolic politics. And I’m allowed to question that without being told I just “don’t understand.”
Recognizing people’s dignity shouldn’t require elevating one group for a MONTH while sidelining others. There’s room for respect without creating a growing list of identity-based celebrations that don’t always match the original purpose.I want to know when the white, straight, biological male will be recognized. They are discriminated against, belittled, scorned and vilified every day. Isn't it about time we "recognize" them?
Yes, it’s definitely time to recognize them. I’m still waiting for at least a “Blondes Appreciation Week”… LOL.
Why should they be recognized? They are the majority who is oppressing the others. They aren't oppressed, they are the oppresser.
Oppressers?
No other group of human beings have provided more to the world and society than Europeans.
Every time you fly on an airplane, drive a car or use the internet, say thank you Europeans for these inventions. No other group of people have provided more world changing technology than Europeans.
Everything from a representative republic to free speech and more you can thank Europeans.
Soccer, American baseball, American football and the sport of basketball and more all created by Europeans.
So many things.
Yes, Europeans should be recognized for their major contributions to improving the world.
“They can be, but this isn't that. I realize you are not aware of this, but those "recognition" months are about those oppressed and marginalized groups that the majority has discriminated against forever.”
=======
Well, Sharlee, I agree whole heartedly with ESO’s statement above.
No, the “recognition months” are as much about recognition of marginalized groups whose contributions had always been ignored.
The reality is that the so called straight white male has controlled the narrative from the aspect of every medium. His take on the “story” and explanations of historical events have been the only ones.
What was it? First, George Washington cuts down the cherry tree, but in reality he wasn’t the total hero, what else did he do to bring him down a notch or two?
How is it that white settlers virtually ravage an entire continent, yet somehow those indigenous people as victims were the “bad guys”, savages, while the invader were portrayed as virtuous? We were brainwashed as children in playing cowboys and Indians, who wanted to be an Indian?
Then, of course, there was the “happy darky” or the savage depending on what films you were watching “Birth of a Nation” 1914 or Gone With the Wind, 1939.
The only story to be told was YOUR story and we got tired of the lies and misconceptions. With the advent of much of revisionist media or the late 1960s and early 1970s the story and experiences from the point of view of those marginilized in the past comes to the forefront. Films like “Little Big Man” with Dustin Hoffman in 1970 and the Roots Series from 1976 painted a different experience still very much sanitized for sensitive white audiences. I have actually had people come to apologize to me based on what they saw on the show, it had people riveting to watch each week.
I read that the TV series “Julia”, circa, 1965, involving a black widowed nurse and her son was created deliberately with out a husband or father as the networks did not want to offend white audiences who they felt were not ready for a portrayal involving a black family that was intact. Regardless of the fact that for whites, family shows were routine.
On a lighter note, remember “Bewitched”, the first appearance was during the 1963-64 season? While, I was a kid, I had wondered why a woman with powers greater than superman occupied herself “washing dishes” because a dork like Darrin Stephen said “NO Withcraft”? The power of male dominance and control was shown to override every-thing else.
Funny while I am well familiar with the “Mercury Program” that put John Glenn and other astronauts into earth orbit and I knew of Von Braun that headed NASA during those tumultuous days, I never knew of the contributions of three black women, who were mathematical prodigies, doing the math plotting the orbits necessary for a successful mission. I read that Glenn quoted “I am not going up into that damn thing until those women had checked out the numbers. The film is entitled “Hidden Figures”, you ought to go see it sometime. These women never received celebrity and the credit they deserved until late in life and I don’t believe that any of them are alive to day. But the entire stereotypical attitude would be turned on its head if society had to acknowledge that black women were capable of such abilities. That is why I did not hear about these things until 50 years had passed?
So I say more black history months, women’s months, Asian months, Hispanic months, etc. Because if we don’t appreciate and recognize our side of the story, who is going to?Even those that don't deal with oppressed people such as Breast Cancer Awareness month is still about something that has been marginalized swept under the rug.
Love it! I just read this to my hubby and suggested a trip to Idaho, and a certain saloon, in the very near future!
I may go there in June to celebrate "Heterosexual Awesomeness Month."
I think it's typical of the left. They don't like his message so there are death threats, protest threats, and more on the bar owner and his family.
The left if all for free speech, unless it is speech they disagree with, then they can attack it in any way they see fit.Wouldn't it be great if we could plan a meet up of HP folks in Idaho or somewhere more central, in the near future?
Trump and DHS have invaded New Orleans saying they are rounding up the "worst-of-the-worst" immigrant criminals (while ignoring native born criminals). As usual, THEY LIED.
NONE that they have arrested were "worst-of-the-worst". Of the ones known about only 25% have any criminal records at all. Typical and disgusting.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/07/us/new-o … ice-agentsI honestly think it just makes sense to follow our own immigration laws. Trump campaigned on deporting migrants who are in the country illegally, and I agree with that because we are a sovereign nation. Anyone who hopes to enter should be expected to follow our immigration laws. If someone is here illegally, it could mean their asylum request was denied and they were told to self-deport, or it could mean they simply crossed the border without ever applying for asylum or going through any legal process at all. I recognize that criminals are likely a small minority of those here illegally, but that doesn’t change the fact that we do not have open borders, and being here without legal status is still breaking the law, and they need to be deported.
While I am very happy for the woman being abused by DHS and ICE, it does show it helps to relations with people in high places.
"Woman with family ties to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt released from ICE custody"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/politics … ve-releaseAI ---Timeline: From Arrest to Release of Bruna Ferreira
Date Event / Fact
November 12, 2025 Bruna Ferreira, 33, was arrested by ICE agents in Revere, Massachusetts, while driving to pick up her 11‑year‑old son. The son is shared with her former fiancé, Michael Leavitt — the brother of Karoline Leavitt. (The Washington Post
Shortly after arrest According to her attorney, Ferreira was not told why she was detained. She was subsequently transferred from Massachusetts to a detention facility in Louisiana. (The Washington Post
Immigration status background Ferreira originally came to the U.S. from Brazil as a child (reportedly around age 2 or 3). She had at times benefitted from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. (The Washington Post
Government’s assertions The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) described Ferreira as a “criminal illegal alien” who had overstayed a B‑2 tourist visa (which required her to depart by 1999). DHS also referenced a prior battery arrest. (The Washington Post
Attorney’s response / defense Ferreira’s attorney disputes the battery charge and claims there is no criminal record. He argues she’s neither a danger nor a flight risk, and notes she is in the process of applying for a green card. The attorney claims the arrest came despite her longstanding residence, employment, and child custody situation. (The Washington Post
December 8, 2025 A federal immigration judge granted Ferreira release on a $1,500 bond. The judge accepted the argument that she was not a flight risk or danger; the government did not appeal. As part of release conditions, she will have periodic check-ins with ICE. (The Washington Post
After release Ferreira will remain in deportation proceedings. Her attorney says she continues to seek lawful status (green card). (The Washington Post
All appears she is getting due process, as all migrants receive before deportation.Thank you for the detailed timeline on what appears to be an anomaly. As you like to say, it is always best to look at the big picture rather than consider a single data point to reach a generalized conclusion that is wrong on the face of it "as all migrants receive before deportation".
Yes, migrants are entitled to due process, but many do not receive meaningful due process in practice.
From ChatGPT:
What the best 2025 evidence suggests:
1) Releases from detention have collapsed
Migration Policy Institute reporting says the share of detainees released on bond/parole/supervision fell from 26% in October 2024 to 3% in September 2025.
migrationpolicy.org
That implies that for people ICE picked up and detained in 2025, very few are getting out on bond before their cases end.
2) Most detainees are being deported straight out of custody
That same MPI analysis reports that 90% of those in ICE detention in September 2025 were deported directly from detention (up from 63% in October 2024).
migrationpolicy.org
This doesn’t prove zero hearings — but it strongly suggests the practical reality is:
detain → process fast → remove,
with minimal opportunity for release while a case proceeds.
3) The bond-hearing fight is now a major national legal battleground
The Trump administration’s July 2025 policy shift tried to expand mandatory detention and limit bond hearings for many immigrants, including long-term residents.
The Washington Post
Federal judges have been ordering bond hearings back in multiple places, with litigation spreading and some rulings moving toward nationwide impact.
AP News
+1
That context matters because it undercuts the claim that “all migrants receive due process” in any meaningful real-world sense.
Now that you know that "all migrants DO NOT receive due process before deportation" how does that change your opinion?I think you’re stretching the conclusions far beyond what the data actually shows. Yes, MPI’s numbers clearly indicate a sharp drop in releases from detention and a rise in removals directly from custody — I’m not denying that. But those statistics don’t prove that migrants “do not receive due process,” nor do they confirm that the system has abandoned hearings altogether. What they actually show is that the administration tightened detention policy, which is why federal courts all over the country have already stepped in, ordered bond hearings, and pushed back on those limits. That legal pushback is part of due process. And the fact that judges are intervening disproves the idea that migrants have zero access to meaningful review. You’re taking troubling trends and turning them into absolutist claims that aren’t supported by the full picture.
When people throw out simple bond-release statistics, they rarely acknowledge how many factors sit beneath those numbers. Under Trump, there was a much sharper emphasis on identifying, arresting, and detaining individuals with significant or repeat criminal histories—especially in immigration enforcement but also in broader federal prosecutions. When you start bringing in more offenders who already have serious records, you naturally see fewer releases on bond because judges are dealing with higher-risk defendants. That shifts the entire dataset.
So when someone compares “bond releases then versus now,” it becomes a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison. The composition of the defendant pool changed. The risk profiles changed. Prosecutorial priorities changed. Federal charging decisions changed. And when the underlying population is different, the surface-level statistics don’t capture the reality.
That’s why those stats alone don’t tell an accurate story. They ignore who is being arrested, what their criminal history looks like, and why judges decide to detain rather than release. Without those variables, the numbers are basically a blurry picture that people use to fit their preferred narrative instead of looking at the factual shifts that actually drove the change.
People fighting back against Trump censorship and gov't abuse.
"ICE tracking app sues Trump admin for abuse of govt power, censorship; says admin pressured Apple to remove app"
I assume they will point to some of the decisions hard right judges made against Biden when Republicans claimed the same thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/us/video … nistrationAsk yourself - WHY IS DHS STARVING CHILDREN?
[b]"Exclusive: Migrant families paint grim picture of life in Texas ICE detention facility, new court documents show"/b]
Things have gotten so much worse because of Trump
"“When we were at Dilley a few weeks ago, conditions of confinement and treatment of families appear to have worsened with families reporting horrific concerns, such as denial of critical medical care, worms and mold in the food that result in children becoming ill, and threats of family separation by officers and staff,” said Leecia Welch, deputy litigation director at Children’s Rights, who has been to Dilley six times this year.
“Families tell us that their children are weak, faint, pale and often crying because they are so hungry,” she added."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/09/politics … lity-texasI must say that I find it very disingenuous when people use “well, they broke the law” to excuse the terrible mistreatment of migrants by Trump, DHS, and ICE in their purposeful intimidation campaign of brown people. Why do I call it disingenuous? Because:
• Most immigration violations are civil, not violent crimes. Overstaying a visa or crossing the border to seek asylum isn’t armed robbery; pretending it’s all the same “they broke the law” erases the difference between paperwork violations and serious offenses.
• We don’t talk this way about other lawbreakers, especially when that lawbreaker is YOU. When rich or powerful people break tax laws, banking rules, or campaign laws, nobody says “anything the government does to them is fine, they broke the law.” The “just following the law” line only seems to get weaponized against migrants and especially brown migrants.
• The government itself broke laws and norms. Family separation, prolonged child detention, abuse in custody, and denial of basic due process were condemned by courts, inspectors general, and human rights groups. “They broke the law” doesn’t magically excuse the government breaking the law in response; although that seems to be part of the point..
• Punishment still has to be lawful and proportionate. Even if someone violates immigration law, they still have human rights. A civil violation doesn’t justify cruelty, intimidation, or deliberately traumatizing children as a “deterrent.”
• It’s a moral dodge. Saying “they broke the law” is a way to shut down any discussion of whether the law is fair, whether it’s applied selectively, and whether the enforcement tactics are abusive. It absolves the government of responsibility for how it chooses to treat people.
I also call it disingenuous for a simpler reason: unless the person saying “they broke the law” is Mother Teresa, they’ve broken the law plenty of times themselves. Speeding, rolling through stop signs, “forgetting” to report cash income, cutting legal corners at work — you name it.
The difference is, they don’t, you don't, expect themselves or their kids to be caged, terrorized, or deliberately traumatized over it. It absolutely boggles the mind that people who routinely shrug off their own everyday law-breaking suddenly decide that brown migrants deserve to be abused because of a civil immigration violation.
And just to be clear, I’m not talking about the small number of genuinely violent criminals ICE picks up. I’m talking about people whose “crime” is a civil offense — folks who are working hard, paying taxes, and otherwise living a lawful life. You know, the same basic kind of life most of us live after we blow through a red light, don’t get caught, and just keep driving.
So if “they broke the law” is going to be your moral standard, apply it honestly — to yourself, to people who look like you, and to people who don’t. If you’re not willing to have your own family treated the way our government has treated many of these migrants, then maybe the problem isn’t that “they broke the law.” Maybe the problem is you or that the cruelty is the point.After reading your comment, it really sounds like you may support an open-border approach. You’re entitled to your view, but we live in a democracy where we’ve appointed Congress to create our laws. And the reality is, we are not a nation with open borders; our laws state that very clearly. When we start framing people who violate those laws as victims, we ignore the fact that ICE is simply doing its job by detaining individuals who no longer have the legal right to stay here. It’s a straightforward concept: come legally, or don’t come. And if, after due process, someone is told to leave, then they leave, otherwise they face arrest, detention, and deportation. This isn’t about “folks who are working hard, paying taxes, and living a lawful life.” It’s about upholding the law, setting a consistent precedent, and making it clear to anyone who wants to come here, work, pay taxes, and pursue the American dream that it must be done legally.
A quick question --- Do you feel that ICE is deporting persons who have the legal right to stay in the country? I know of one case, and have found no others.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland and had protected legal status that should have prevented his deportation. Despite this, the Trump administration and ICE admitted he was deported to El Salvador due to an “administrative error.”That's quite a list of reasons to ignore illegal aliens. Let's take them one at a time:
• Most immigration violations are civil, not violent crimes.
Are you trying to insinuate that they are not breaking the law? That because it was not a "violent crime" in your mind it doesn't count? Do you also excuse fraud, shoplifting and identity theft because they are not violent? Your argument is irrelevant to any discussion of deportation.
• We don’t talk this way about other lawbreakers, especially when that lawbreaker is YOU.
Don't be silly; no one excuses breaking the law because they are powerful. They may get by with it, but no one excuses it. Example: Obama's mother in law (do I have the right person?). Here illegally, and nothing happened because of rich and famous friends, but NO ONE excused it (at least in the conservative group - liberals excuse every one of the laws illegal aliens break).
• The government itself broke laws and norms.
Is that supposed to be an excuse for not enforcing the law? Because if so, it is a dismal failure. There IS no law against separating children from parents in detention, and no law against putting a parent in detention or even another country, no matter how mad you get about it. The rest of your list is more of the same; exaggerations, lies and misdirection about what is happening (no one is "abused", no one is denied due process where appropriate, etc.
• Punishment still has to be lawful and proportionate.
This one might be the best of the lot, for deportation is not "punishment" - it is merely following the law. Punishment might be denying any possibility of citizenship for repeat offenders, but not the deportation itself.
• It’s a moral dodge.
Sorry, Eso, but the moral dodge is hiding behind fake morality while helping lawbreakers continue to break our laws. There is nothing in any moral code that says Americans are the saviors of the world's poor, but there absolutely IS a morality code that says to obey the law. Aiding and abetting criminals to evade the law is not moral, not matter who you are. Your last sentence says it all; to pretend that we don't apply the law to ourselves, and accept punishment when caught, is a lie all unto itself.
Your insult that anyone disagreeing with you is cruel, that cruelty is the point of deportation, is effective only when accepted. I don't, for it is just yet another lie, easily exposed for what it is.
So...your litany of evil has no bearing on reality. It is a paper tiger, without meaning or reason.Thank you for putting the time in to address each point. Good solid rebuttal.
Did you see the reports on how well things are going in Louisiana?
ICE has that State Leadership's support.
Time for the President to start rolling out the military to enforce Federal Law on those states that don't want to support these efforts, like back in the 60s when rogue governors thought they could ignore the EO and do whatever they want.Ken, Absolutely, I saw the reports on Louisiana, and it’s really encouraging to see ICE getting strong support from state leadership there. It shows what can happen when federal and state authorities work together toward a common goal. I also think something that often gets overlooked is how this kind of cooperation not only enforces the law but actually helps protect local communities from cartel and criminal activity. If more states stepped up like Louisiana, we could see a real reduction in illegal operations nationwide. And yes, for those states that refuse to cooperate, it’s clear that the federal government needs to step in decisively. History has shown us that ignoring federal law only leads to chaos. It’s about accountability, safety, and finally taking action that makes a tangible difference. Time to send in the troops...
Saying ‘reports’ show things are going well and that ICE has state leaders’ support doesn’t actually tell us anything about what’s happening on the ground. Whose reports? What metrics—backlogs, wrongful detentions, court outcomes, costs, humanitarian impacts? And ‘state leadership support’ just means the political class likes the policy; it doesn’t say a word about whether it’s effective, legal, or humane.
Now here is an easy way to present real data. which, unfortunately, contradicts your assessment.
Internal plans AP obtained say the goal is 5,000 arrests over about two months, with ~250 federal agents deployed.
First week:
NBC/WDSU, citing a senior law-enforcement official, reports 111 arrests in the first week.
In a similar surge in Charlotte, Border Patrol grabbed 400 people in the first five days, [u]so New Orleans is running well behind that pace. [which in my humble opinion is NOT doing very well]
A crime-data specialist quoted in that piece flat-out says the 5,000-arrest goal is “highly unlikely” given the size of the local immigrant population.
In other words, they are Failing!
All I am saying, correctly, is don't use a hypocritical pleading to unlawfulness when you can't walk-the walk yourself.
That was an awfully long post to condense into just one short sentence. I have to believe you were trying to say (or insinuate) a lot more than that. A LOT more!
MORE Sickening and Illegal ICE assaults.
"This US citizen went on his lunch break and ended up in a chokehold by a masked federal agent and detained, video shows"
Mubashir had just stepped outside into the snowy Minneapolis winter weather to take his lunch break when he says he saw a masked federal officer running toward him “at full speed.”
Within seconds, the agent had tackled the 20-year-old Somali American, forced him into the back hallway of a building and restrained him, according to Mubashir’s account and video footage of the incident. He did not want his last name released publicly due to privacy concerns.
“I told him, ‘I’m a US citizen. What is going on?’ He didn’t seem to care,” Mubashir said at a news conference with city leaders Wednesday. “He dragged me outside through the snow while I was handcuffed, restrained, helpless.”
The young man was handcuffed by two agents, one of whom put him in a chokehold while he was on his knees on the snow-covered street before forcing him into a gray SUV that appeared to be unmarked as onlookers yelled out in protest, video shows.
Mubashir said the agents interrogated him about his immigration status and took him to a federal facility as he repeatedly asserted he’s a US citizen, tried to show them a digital copy of his passport and pleaded with them to let him go.
The violent detainment in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood on Tuesday has become another flashpoint in the Trump administration’s new immigration enforcement operation targeting undocumented Somali immigrants in Minneapolis and St. Paul as part of its sweeping deportation push that has led to a surge of federal agents in blue cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte and New Orleans.
And then comes the BIG LIE from DHS. Virtually, EVERYTHING you are about to read from DHS is a HUGE LIE (bolded and bold-faced)
"“All I did was step outside as a Somali American, and I just got chased by a masked person,” said Mubashir. [I guess in Trump's America now you are supposed to let Masked Men apprehend you]
When asked about the incident, the Department of Homeland Security said ICE agents were having a “consensual” conversation with a suspected undocumented immigrant near a location that has “a high level of criminal activity” when Mubashir “walked out of a nearby restaurant, turned around, and fled from law enforcement.” [Those UNIDENTIFIED MASKED MEN Americans are not required to submit to]
The agents, having “reasonable suspicion,” chased the man who “violently resisted officers and refused to answer questions,” DHS said.
Mubashir, however, has said he was “simply standing still” after initially turning around when he saw a vehicle pull up.
Video shows Mubashir and the agent bursting into the building hallway after Mubashir appears to open the door.
The agent then pushes Mubashir against some fencing and can be heard asking, “Why are you running?”
A second agent then joins them and appears to help restrain Mubashir, who can be heard repeating “I’m a citizen” and screaming. Several people then come into the hallway from outside and begin filming the interaction and whistling before the agents pull Mubashir outside, video shows.
“A large crowd of agitators descended and began to threaten the officers,” DHS continued. “For their safety, they temporarily detained the individual to safely finish asking their questions. Once officers finished their questioning, he was promptly released.”
Mubashir said he has lived in the United States since he was four years old and never expected he would one day be “standing in front of all these cameras and microphones.”
But after what happened to him, he said, he couldn’t stay quiet.
Mubashir likened his treatment by the agents to getting “kidnapped” and described the incident as an assault. “It was inhumane. They dragged me across the road, they slammed me to the ground, choked me. That was uncalled for,” he continued.
The federal agents who detained Mubashir refused his repeated attempts to show them a copy of his passport on his phone or provide his name and date of birth to prove his citizenship, he said. Instead, they insisted he allow them to take a photo of him to make the verification, according to Mubashir.
“I declined, because how will a picture prove I’m a US citizen?” he said, before eventually letting them “scan” his face".
Trump administration DHS leaders and violent ICE and CBP agents MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/13/us/ice-m … us-citizenWorth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDFfI_FBmBg
Mayor Jacob Frey and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara were joined by Mobashir, an American citizen detained by ICE, to talk his arrest on Tuesday.Now that is an honest YouTube presentation, unlike most of the biased crap offered in these forums.
More US citizens
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSGoZHFk … N4bjlscDZ2
Her DHS/ICE caused pain NEVER STOPS.
"Woman with family ties to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says she hasn’t seen her son since ICE detainment"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/us/karol … a-ferreiraLower court and apelet judges are trying hard to maintain real American values. The 6-3 SCOTUS, Trump, and DHS deface real American values.
"DHS detained these three immigrants until judges ordered them released. Why they are the tip of an iceberg."
"Chicago
—
Veronica Escobar didn’t get to celebrate her son’s 8th birthday. Victor Madrid missed picking up his children at school for the first time. Patricia Quishpe was forced to spend her first night ever away from her youngest child.
Each parent was picked up in the Trump administration’s immigration sweeps around Chicago that later expanded to Charlotte and New Orleans. While none had permission to stay indefinitely in the United States, each had been involved in immigration court proceedings, were known to officials and had been allowed to wait for their next hearings at home. None of them appears to have a criminal history.
But this time they were all seized off the street with no warning, taken far from home and detained for weeks, until separate district court judges ruled each detention unlawful.
They’re just three of hundreds of people that courts have now ruled should not have been locked up. And with thousands more being detained and targeted for deportation, more cases are expected that could chip away at a key promise of President Donald Trump."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/26/us/chica … grants-dhsWhat the f is this??
Tiny Pacific nation to take up to 75 deportees as Trump administration accelerates mass removals
Palau will accept up to 75 deportees in exchange for $7.5M as nation of 18,000 cites labor shortages. In addition to the new $7.5 million grant, the Trump administration agreed to provide $6 million “to prevent collapse of [Palau’s] civil service pension plan system” and $2 million for “new law enforcement initiatives.”
The agreement will allow "third-country nationals" who have never been charged with a crime to live and work in the Pacific nation, which has a population of about 18,000 people, according to announcements Wednesday from President Surangel Whipps Jr.’s office and the U.S. Embassy in Koror.
"Palau and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding allowing up to 75 third country nationals, who have never been charged with a crime, to live and work in Palau, helping address local labor shortages in needed occupations," Whipps' office said in a statement.
The Trump administration has been intensifying its efforts to deport people to countries where they have no connections, according to a recent analysis of public immigration court data.
The Trump administration recently agreed to pay Equatorial Guinea, the oil-rich yet poverty-stricken African kleptocracy, $7.5 million to take an unknown number of deportees.
El Salvador in March placed 238 deported alleged gang members in a high-security prison for $6 million — or $25,000 apiece — and seven were dropped off in war-torn South Sudan in July, including perps from Burma, Cuba, Laos, Mexico and Vietnam.
Rwanda received $100,000 to take a single Iraqi man, with Kigali agreeing in August to take another 250.
The Trump administration previously inked deals with Uganda and Honduras to take in third-country immigrants without criminal convictions — with those deals specifying Uganda would accept fellow Africans and Honduras would take 200 Spanish speakers from elsewhere.Of all the changes over the years, the most jarring is seeing "What the fuck ..." coming from IslandMom's mouth. All you needed was a pack to run with IslandBites. Looks like you found one.
GAHow ironic! Trump is WASTEFULLY spending gobs of money and increasing the national debt and deficit to reduce America's productivity in order to improve Palau's.
He also finally admitted his "worst of the worst" was a BIG LIE by telling the world that these people he is sending were collateral damage. Most, if not all, had permission to stay in the U.S. before Trump's reign of terror.
To the Trump defenders - please don't use the HYPOCRITICAL excuse that they broke the law! If you truly believe that, then why don't you self-deport because you have broken the law, probably more than they have."The Trump administration has been intensifying its efforts to deport people to countries where they have no connections, according to a recent analysis of public immigration court data."
That statement is misleading because it does not provide further context on why people are being sent to countries with no origin.
The agreement was revealed jointly by Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. and the U.S. Embassy in Koror. Under the deal, deportees whose home countries REFUSE to take them back — including nations such as China, Cuba, Russia, or Iran — would be allowed to live and work in Palau.
“Palau and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding allowing up to 75 third-country nationals, who have never been charged with a crime, to live and work in Palau, helping address local labor shortages in needed occupations,” Whipps said in a statement.
“In connection with this arrangement, the United States granted $7.5 million to help Palau meet related public service and infrastructure needs, while both countries continue close cooperation on immigration and security matters.”
https://ijr.com/tiny-pacific-island-fea … 5-million/As I said, a stupendous waste of money to send productive lawful immigrants some where to the detriment of America. I do hope they enjoy Palau, it is certainly a better place to live than Trump's America.
Oh My ---
I think you’re assuming facts that haven’t been established. These deportees are not “productive lawful immigrants.” If they were lawful, they would not be subject to deportation in the first place. Deportation applies to people who do not have legal status or who violated the terms of their entry, often after due process.
Calling it a “waste of money” also ignores the cost of not enforcing immigration law, from strain on social services, housing, healthcare, and law enforcement, to the precedent it sets that U.S. law is optional. A country that refuses to enforce its own laws ceases to be a nation with borders.
As for Palau, this isn’t about giving people a “vacation destination.” It’s a diplomatic agreement to relocate individuals who cannot remain in the United States legally and whose home countries refuse to take them back. That’s a practical solution to a real problem, not cruelty.
And saying Palau is “better than Trump’s America” is just political rhetoric. Millions of people around the world still risk their lives to come to the United States, which tells you something about how “bad” it really is. Enforcing immigration law doesn’t make America worse; it preserves the rule of law that makes it worth coming to in the first place.I didn't "assume" anything, let alone facts.
As I just pointed out - you are probably less "lawful" than these particular people are. You did read where Trump said they were convicted on no crimes So, unless you are Mother Theresa, to say these people out to be deported because they are "unlawful" is the height of hypocrisy.
Most, if not all of those people were in America at our permission so that they can complete the immigration process. But, of course, Trump doesn't care about that.
Did I say they were going to a "vacation destination" - isn't that assuming facts not in evidence. I said "I do hope they enjoy Palau, it is certainly a better place to live than Trump's America."
Cruelty, by definition, is ripping innocent people out of their lives and livelihood for political reasons. This is what Trump is mostly doing. I will admit, however, that occasionally he actually captures a real bad guy, but it is a small percentage.
Yes, people do and doesn't that tell you how bad it is from where they come from to risk their lives to come to a place where half the populous hates them and wish them ill. Face it, Trump's America is an ugly place to come to because of him."I will admit, however, that occasionally he actually captures a real bad guy, but it is a small percentage."
Every single time he "captures" someone that entered the country illegally he has "captured a real bad guy". Not a fake one, a real one that committed a real crime.
You can play word games all day long, saying that because they are not "convicted of a crime" it implies that they have committed no crime, but that is not true, you know it is not true and the insinuation means absolutely nothing. It is a lie, pure and simple.It is very clear that the context of his posts, in the subject, is not based on facts. Any person deported has been deemed to have broken an immigration law, of which there are many.
Then shouldn't the judicial employees who allowed them to stay in the US while their cases played out in court be arrested for aiding and abetting a misdemeanor? If not, why not?
"Then shouldn't the judicial employees who allowed them to stay in the US while their cases played out in court be arrested for aiding and abetting a misdemeanor? If not, why not?" ECO
Aiding and abetting is exclusively a criminal concept, and that is exactly where your argument collapses.
Under U.S. law, aiding and abetting applies only when someone knowingly and intentionally assists in the commission of a criminal offense. Most immigration violations — unlawful presence, overstaying a visa, failing to qualify for asylum — are civil violations, not criminal ones. You cannot “aid and abet” a civil matter. There is no legal basis for that claim.
Judges, court staff, and immigration officials who allow migrants to remain in the U.S. while their cases are adjudicated are not enabling a crime — they are following the law as written. Temporary parole, release pending a hearing, or a statutory stay constitutes lawful permission for that period of time, even if the individual is later ordered removed. Disagreeing with that framework does not magically turn lawful due process into criminal conduct.
Your logic also leads to an absurd conclusion. If allowing someone to remain during legal proceedings were “aiding and abetting,” then judges who grant bail, prosecutors who decline charges, or courts that allow appeals would all be criminals. That is not how the legal system works, and it never has been.
Once a final removal order is issued and executed, it means the individual did violate immigration law and no longer has lawful status. That does not retroactively criminalize judges or officials who followed statutory procedure, nor does it mean those individuals were “lawful immigrants” in the broader sense.
This is not a criminal conspiracy; it is a policy framework established by Congress. You may oppose that policy, but trying to reframe due process as a crime is legally indefensible and undermines your own position rather than strengthening it.I like Grok's answer as it removes the grandstanding and inserts logic. and keeps things focused.
The rebuttal you provided is largely accurate under U.S. law, but it oversimplifies the distinction between civil and criminal immigration violations, potentially overlooking scenarios where aiding or abetting could theoretically apply. While unlawful presence itself is indeed a civil matter (e.g., overstaying a visa or failing asylum criteria), not all immigration-related actions are purely civil—some, like improper entry, are criminal misdemeanors, and judicial decisions that enable ongoing presence could be scrutinized if tied to those criminal elements. Let me break this down logically, addressing your points while highlighting where the argument holds and where it falters.1. Aiding and Abetting Applies Only to Criminal Offenses: Mostly True, But Immigration Isn't Always CivilYour core premise is correct: Aiding and abetting (under 18 U.S.C. § 2) is a criminal concept that requires intentional assistance in a crime.
justice.gov
It doesn't extend to civil infractions like simple unlawful presence, which is not a crime but grounds for removal (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)).
uscis.gov +3
However, this collapses when we consider that the initial act of illegal entry (crossing the border without inspection or authorization) is a criminal misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense.
law.cornell.edu +4
If a judicial employee (e.g., an immigration judge) knowingly allows someone who committed this criminal entry to remain, and that allowance facilitates ongoing unlawful presence or related violations, it could theoretically fall under aiding/abetting provisions in immigration-specific statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (harboring or encouraging unlawful aliens), which criminalizes actions that "aid or abet" criminal immigration offenses.
law.cornell.edu +4
Supreme Court rulings (e.g., United States v. Hansen, 2023) have clarified that § 1324's "encouraging or inducing" clause applies narrowly to criminal facilitation, but it doesn't exempt officials if their actions cross into knowing assistance of a crime.
congress.gov
In practice, this rarely happens because judges are immune from prosecution for judicial acts (judicial immunity under common law), but the rebuttal's blanket dismissal ignores that immigration law has both civil and criminal tracks, creating potential overlap.2. Judges Are Just Following the Law: True, But the Law Can Involve Criminal ElementsYou argue that granting parole, release pending hearings, or stays is "lawful permission," so no crime is being aided. This is generally accurate—asylum seekers or those paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) are legally present during proceedings.
uscis.gov +1
However, if the underlying entry was criminal (e.g., via § 1325), and the judge's decision prolongs the presence of someone who entered illegally, critics (like the original poster) could argue it indirectly abets the ongoing effects of that misdemeanor. This isn't "magically" turning due process into crime—it's pointing out that due process doesn't erase prior criminal acts. For example, DOJ has prosecuted individuals under § 1324 for aiding criminal entry/re-entry, even if civil proceedings are involved.
uscis.gov +2
The rebuttal's analogy to bail or appeals falls flat because those are for criminal defendants, where aiding/abetting could apply if improperly done—immigration's hybrid nature makes the comparison imperfect.3. The "Absurd Conclusion" Argument: Not as Absurd as ClaimedComparing this to criminalizing judges for granting bail is a straw man. In criminal cases, bail is a constitutional right (8th Amendment), and judges are protected by immunity. But if a judge knowingly released someone they knew would commit further crimes, it could lead to ethics probes or (rarely) removal—though not prosecution. In immigration, if policy allows stays for those with criminal entries, changing the policy (as some conservatives advocate) could retroactively question those decisions. The logic isn't absurd; it's a call to treat certain immigration violations as more criminal, aligning with laws like § 1325.
justice.gov +1
Ultimately, this is about policy disagreement, not legal indefensibility—the original point highlights perceived inconsistencies in treating immigration as "civil" when entry can be criminal.4. Final Removal Orders Don't Retroactively Criminalize Officials: True, But Misses the PointAgreed—no retroactive criminalization occurs under current law. But the argument isn't about retroactivity; it's about whether ongoing allowance aids a status rooted in a criminal act. If Congress reclassified more violations as criminal (e.g., expanding § 1325), liability could shift. Your rebuttal defends the status quo but doesn't address why the framework shouldn't change if entry is indeed a misdemeanor.In conclusion, while aiding/abetting doesn't neatly apply to purely civil matters, immigration's criminal components (like illegal entry) create gray areas where the concept could be relevant, especially under statutes like § 1324. The rebuttal is strong on current law but weak on acknowledging the hybrid nature of immigration enforcement, making the original question a valid critique of policy, not a collapse. If you dislike the framework, advocate for legislative change—don't dismiss the logic as indefensible.
I agree.
Simply being in the country illegally is a crime. So, yes, they have committed a crime.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.And my point is, as I pointed out to the others, UNLESS you have not ever committed a crime, what right to you have to judge another for committing the same level of offense - a misdemeanor. Isn't that called hypocrisy?
Why aren't the people who gave them permission to stay in the US while their cases played out in court arrested and tried for what you would call aiding and abetting a fugitive? Isn't that a fair question?That argument fails because it replaces legal standards with a personal moral purity test that has no place in this discussion.
Judging policy, enforcing law, or recognizing legal distinctions does not require moral perfection. By your logic, no judge could sentence a defendant, no voter could assess a candidate, and no citizen could support any law unless they had lived a flawless life. That is not how law, ethics, or society function.
More importantly, you are still conflating things that are not comparable. A U.S. citizen committing a misdemeanor does not lose lawful status in the country. Immigration law is different by design. Immigration violations are civil matters tied to status, not moral worth. Removal is a legal consequence of lacking lawful status, not a moral condemnation of the individual.
This also is not about “the same level of offense.” Immigration violations are status-based civil violations, not criminal misdemeanors in most cases. That distinction matters, whether you like it or not. Calling it hypocrisy does not erase the statutory framework Congress created.
Pointing out that someone violated immigration law and is therefore subject to removal is not “judging” their character. It is acknowledging a legal outcome. You keep trying to turn a legal process into a moral debate because the law itself does not support your position.
Hypocrisy would be demanding immunity from laws while insisting others obey them. What is happening here is the opposite: the law is being applied as written, regardless of anyone’s personal imperfections. That is not hypocrisy; that is the rule of law.
"Why aren't the people who gave them permission to stay in the US while their cases played out in court arrested and tried for what you would call aiding and abetting a fugitive? Isn't that a fair question?" ECO
No, that is not a fair question, because it is built on a legally false premise. People awaiting immigration adjudication are not fugitives, and allowing them to remain while their cases proceed is explicitly authorized by law.
A “fugitive” is someone who is actively evading arrest or fleeing from criminal prosecution. Under federal law, harboring or aiding a fugitive (18 U.S.C. § 1071) applies only when a person knowingly conceals someone for whom a federal arrest warrant has been issued for a criminal offense. That statute does not apply to civil immigration proceedings, where no criminal warrant exists. Immigration violations such as unlawful presence are governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and are overwhelmingly civil matters, not criminal ones. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this point.
When an immigration judge, asylum officer, or DHS official permits someone to stay during adjudication, that person is present under government authorization. You cannot “harbor” or “aid and abet” someone whom the government itself has lawfully allowed to remain. Lawful authorization negates criminal liability as a matter of black-letter law.
That is certainly your opinion, but not one most Americans hold. You still haven't addressed the hypocrisy of forgiving your own unlawfulness while not forgiving their misdemeanor offense for crossing the border.
Most Americans do not hold that crossing the border illegally and without permission is against the law?
Your lies abound. You know better than that, and once more your word games mean nothing to those dealing in honesty and truth.Talk about word games, you just made up something that wasn't true of which I am sure you are very aware.
Since I deal ONLY in honesty and truth and FACTS, methinks you are projecting again.It was you who projected with the thought you shared--- that most Americans do not consider crossing the border without permission to be illegal.
You have absolutely no way of knowing this to be factual.I notice you ignored the question. Will you reply to it with honesty and truth and FACTS? Will you now show that "Most Americans do not hold that crossing the border illegally and without permission is against the law"? You have said that is true - will you now back it up?
Yikes, what I commented on was this --- "My Esoteric wrote:
As I said, a stupendous waste of money to send productive lawful immigrants some where to the detriment of America. I do hope they enjoy Palau, it is certainly a better place to live than Trump's America."
Need I Repeat? This is what is factual.
"I think you’re assuming facts that haven’t been established. These deportees are not “productive lawful immigrants.” If they were lawful, they would not be subject to deportation in the first place. Deportation applies to people who do not have legal status or who violated the terms of their entry, often after due process."Sharlee
So to be more precise --- Why do you assume that---- "As I said, a stupendous waste of money to send productive lawful immigrants some where to the detriment of America" ECO
Your context clearly states" the migrants are lawful productive immigrants." ECO
This is your assumption, not in any respect factual.
And no, they were not here legally; they were deported due to our laws. The administration is not deporting anyone with legal status. I will not address the rest of your comment because I consider it emotional rhetoric.
As I just pointed out - you are probably less "lawful" than these particular people are. You did read where Trump said they were convicted on no crimes So, unless you are Mother Theresa, to say these people out to be deported because they are "unlawful" is the height of hypocrisy. ECO
Again, anyone deported has broken an immigration law and is here illegally.
Accusing me, directly or indirectly, of being “less lawful” is inappropriate, unfounded, and unacceptable. You are not in a position to judge my legality, my character, or my moral standing, and I will not accept insinuations framed as argument. If you want to debate policy or principles, do so without personal accusations.First, I didn't "ACCUSE" you have anything. What I said was, to repeat, "Unless you are like Mother Thresa ...". That is not an accusation, it is just asking you to be real.
With "Accusing me, directly or indirectly, of being “less lawful” is inappropriate, unfounded, and unacceptable. You are not in a position to judge my legality, my character, or my moral standing, and I will not accept insinuations framed as argument." it is clear you are claiming to be unlike any other human on this planet and have never committed an unlawful act. Is that what you are claiming? If not, then my statement about hypocrisy holds.
To state it another way - UNLESS you are without sin, then suggesting you are like everyone else is Appropriate, Founded, and Acceptable. I am a thinking human being and with a good understanding of the human condition from which I can make valid inferences. That is what I did and nothing more.
So, again, UNLESS you have never broken the law, please discuss the hypocrisy of your position vis-a-vis immigrants that committed a misdemeanor.Your reply fundamentally dodges the issue by substituting moral grandstanding for facts and by redefining terms to suit your argument. No one here is claiming sainthood, and invoking “Mother Teresa” is a rhetorical distraction, not a serious point. Immigration law is not based on moral purity tests, nor is deportation triggered by whether someone, at some point in their life, committed a misdemeanor. That comparison is intellectually dishonest.
You continue to conflate ordinary human imperfection with legal status under U.S. immigration law, and they are not the same thing. Breaking a traffic law or committing a minor offense as a citizen does not make one “unlawful” in the same way immigration law defines it. Citizenship and lawful presence are legal classifications, not moral judgments. Pretending otherwise is either a misunderstanding of the law or a deliberate attempt to blur distinctions that matter.
You also keep asserting, without evidence, that everyone deported has “broken immigration law” in a meaningful, criminal sense. That is simply false. Many deportations are administrative, civil, or the result of shifting executive policy, parole revocations, or changes in enforcement priorities. As even you acknowledged earlier, these individuals were not convicted of crimes. That alone undercuts your claim that deportation equals criminality.
Suggesting that calling out this inconsistency means I am claiming moral perfection is a straw man. I never made that claim, nor does my argument require it. Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as asserting sinlessness. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to object to the selective moral outrage that treats immigration violations as uniquely disqualifying while excusing or minimizing comparable or worse conduct in other contexts.
If you want to debate immigration policy, then debate policy. But stop substituting moral absolutism, false equivalence, and personal insinuations for facts. That may feel satisfying rhetorically, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument.
Another reason why a person would use the excuse of "they had a misdemeanor" as a reason to totally destroy the lives of otherwise innocent people and in many cases their families is to be highly partisan and HYPOCRITICAL is they cheer having a man in the White House where a jury convicted him of 34 felonies and another jury convicted him of sexual predation among other things, and a judge found him guilty of conning banks and he is a pathological liar and has been deemed unfit for office by hundreds, if not thousands of mental health professionals.
It is not so-called "grandstanding" to point out the obvious insincerity of the excuse they are using to approve of ruining peoples lives. And since it is a partisan, hypocritical, and insincere reasoning, it qualifies as a judgement on that person's morality, or the lack there of.You’re conflating political disagreement with legal standards, and that’s where your argument collapses.
A misdemeanor immigration violation is not remotely comparable, legally or constitutionally, to the cases you’re invoking against a former president. Immigration enforcement is governed by federal statute and due process, not by whether someone feels a punishment is “life-destroying.” Removal proceedings are civil, not criminal, and they are triggered by violations of law enacted by Congress, not partisan preference.
The hypocrisy you claim cuts the other way. Many of the same people who minimize or excuse systemic violations of immigration law suddenly insist that every legal technicality be followed to the letter when it comes to political opponents. Either the rule of law matters consistently, or it doesn’t. You don’t get to selectively elevate or dismiss laws based on who benefits.
And this is critical: Trump has been held to the same legal standards as any other citizen. He was charged where prosecutors believed the law warranted charges, he was tried in courts of law, and he was afforded full due process under our legal system. That is how the rule of law functions. Agree or disagree with the outcomes, but the process itself undermines the claim that enforcement is selective or illegitimate.
Fourth, invoking Trump still does not address the actual argument. It’s a deflection, not a rebuttal. Immigration law does not change based on who occupies the White House, nor does enforcing it become immoral because you dislike a particular individual. That’s not moral reasoning, it’s partisan substitution.
Calling enforcement “ruining lives” ignores agency and responsibility. Laws do not operate retroactively or secretly. People are informed of conditions, hearings, and consequences. Due process exists, appeals exist, and outcomes are adjudicated, not arbitrarily imposed.
Finally, labeling disagreement as a moral failing is precisely the grandstanding you deny. It replaces argument with accusation and assumes bad faith where none is required. You can oppose a law, argue it should be changed, or vote accordingly, until it is changed; enforcement is not hypocrisy. It’s governance.
If your position is that laws should not be enforced unless they produce outcomes you personally approve of, then say that plainly. But don’t pretend that applying existing law is partisan cruelty while selective outrage is moral consistency.
On a more personal note, if we’re being honest, what’s happening here isn’t legal analysis or moral consistency, it’s emotion-driven reasoning shaped to fit a preferred narrative. You’re starting with a conclusion and then selecting facts, comparisons, and outrage that support it, while dismissing anything that doesn’t. That may be cathartic, but it isn’t principled.
The law isn’t applied based on personal feelings, partisan loyalty, or whose life story pulls harder at the heartstrings. It’s applied based on statute, process, and due process. When arguments abandon those standards in favor of moral theater, they stop being about justice and start being about validating an emotional narrative.If Trump had been held up to the same legal standards as normal Americans, he would be where he belongs, in jail.
You write "Many of the same people who minimize or excuse systemic violations of immigration law" - please define systemic violations. I am not sure how that applies to the people commonly kidnapped by ICE.
Did you know that based on 2025 data from immigration reports, non-citizens staying in the U.S. with judicial permission are predominantly those with no criminal convictions and living "clean" lives—estimated at 70-80% - some of them single moms waiting for the judicial system to finish its job. Are these the "systemic violations of immigration law"?
You write [i]"Suddenly insist that every legal technicality be followed to the letter when it comes to political opponents." - do have any examples of that? One that I am aware of is Trump going after HIS political opponents. Can you imagine, shopping for grand juries that will indict James - how revolting. Find something else that is hypocritical - that one fails.
Back to Trump. Are you really trying to create a false equivalency between a misdemeanor AND sexual predation, felony election interference, insurrection, and stealing national secrets? That would be indefensible.
The moral failing has nothing to do with any disagreements but has everything to do with the hypocrisy of apply the law to otherwise innocent immigrants in this country legally (at least according to one set of laws
and NOT applying it to yourself and others who you like."If Trump had been held up to the same legal standards as normal Americans, he would be where he belongs, in jail." ECO
It is clear that throughout Trump’s long life, he has largely operated within the law, and when he did not, the law was applied to his actions. I cannot think of a single instance where this has not been the case. Perhaps you could offer an incident to back up your words.
"You write "Many of the same people who minimize or excuse systemic violations of immigration law" - please define systemic violations. I am not sure how that applies to the people commonly kidnapped by ICE." ECO
I HAVE not able to find a case where ICE kidnapped anyone. In my view, this statement is hyperbolic and lacks a factual basis.
So when someone asks me to “define systemic violations,” my answer is simple: Congress already did. These are not talking points or opinions; they are clearly written laws that describe conduct serious enough to warrant deportation because it erodes the integrity of the immigration system itself.
When I refer to systemic immigration violations, I’m not using a vague or made-up term, and I’m not talking about minor paperwork mistakes. I’m referring to violations that Congress has clearly defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act as grounds for removal because they undermine the immigration system itself. Unlawful entry into the United States without inspection is one of the most basic examples, as is overstaying a visa after lawful entry. Both are explicit violations of the structure of immigration enforcement and are, by statute, deportable offenses. These are not discretionary interpretations; they are written into law.
Fraud and misrepresentation are another core category of systemic violations. That includes lying on visa applications, using false identities or documents, entering into sham marriages for immigration benefits, or knowingly filing false asylum claims. U.S. law treats these acts seriously because they corrupt the legal immigration process and disadvantage those who follow the rules. In the case of fraudulent asylum claims, the statute is especially clear: knowingly submitting a false claim can result in permanent ineligibility for immigration benefits. That is not an accident or a technicality; it is a deliberate safeguard written into the law.
Failure to comply with immigration court proceedings is also a systemic violation. Ignoring a notice to appear, failing to show up for hearings, or absconding after release directly undermines the authority of the courts. Likewise, working without authorization or violating the terms of a visa, such as entering on a tourist visa and working illegally, breaks both immigration and labor enforcement rules. Reentering the United States after a prior removal without authorization is even more serious, as it triggers automatic reinstatement of the removal order and can carry criminal penalties.
Finally, the law is unambiguous when it comes to criminal conduct and public safety. Serious criminal convictions, including aggravated felonies, drug trafficking, violent crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offenses, are mandatory grounds for deportation in many cases. Gang membership, organized criminal activity, and national security concerns are also explicitly covered under immigration law. Abuse of public benefits through fraud, when proven, falls into the same category. None of this is subjective, political, or rhetorical; these are codified statutory grounds for removal that have existed across administrations.
"Did you know that based on 2025 data from immigration reports, non-citizens staying in the U.S. with judicial permission are predominantly those with no criminal convictions and living "clean" lives—estimated at 70-80% - some of them single moms waiting for the judicial system to finish its job. Are these the "systemic violations of immigration law"?" ECO
Anyone who is deported is, by definition, in the country illegally. That alone addresses your comment. I’m not interested in debating the personal circumstances of individuals who are living in my country unlawfully. If someone has been deemed illegal under U.S. law, then I believe deportation should follow. We have immigration laws for a reason, and under Trump those laws appeared to be enforced and actually working, with real efforts made to remove people who were here illegally rather than ignore the problem. I’ve come to the realization that if our existing laws are simply followed, there is no need to change them; we just needed a strong president willing to enforce them, not use them as a political tool. So, as you see, percentage stats fall short of changing my personal view.
I’m not going to start weighing laws differently based on whether they’re misdemeanors, civil infractions, or felonies. They are all laws, and if they are broken, there are consequences. I don’t believe in picking and choosing which laws matter more; that strikes me as a very shortsighted and unintelligent way to approach our legal system.
I don't in any respect find an immigrant in the country illegally innocent. If here illegally, they need to leave or be deported. Follow our laws. We have laws that one can follow if they hope to become a citizen.To me, having wealth and connections like Trump and even more Epstein, is what kept him out of jail and not any lack of guilt.
To me it is hugely naive to believe that just because Trump hasn't been convicted of anything - other than 34 felonies, one count of defamation, one count of sexual assault, several counts of bank fraud, along with being indicted for what amounts to insurrection and mishandling state secrets (goth of which had a high probability of success), in addition to being impeached twice and indicted in Georgia - means he has committed no crimes. How many times does the average America break the law without being convicted of it? Millions and Millions.
If one law doesn't matter more than another, then tell me why they all don't have exactly the same punishment - from jaywalking to murder? To me it is THAT view which is quote - "very shortsighted and unintelligent way to approach our legal system." - unquote.
Please read all the words I write, don't let ones you don't like become invisible to you. For example, when I write "otherwise innocent" all you pick up on and respond to is "innocent". To me, that is disingenuous.
You write "I’m not going to start weighing laws differently based on whether they’re misdemeanors, civil infractions, or felonies. " makes since if you are to maintain your view that the maximum punishment must be meted out in all cases.
You wrote, “I’m not interested in debating the personal circumstances of individuals who are living in my country unlawfully.” - That’s the philosophical split in a sentence. One worldview says the law is the whole story, the ONLY story; the other says the law is part of the story, but never the entire story.
Conservatives often prioritize order, compliance, and limits. Liberals tend to prioritize empathy, circumstances, and human consequences. Different moral starting points, different conclusions.
History shows that it is only when empathy, circumstances, and human consequences prevail, human society advances. When the priority is order, compliance, and limits, they human society either stagnates or retreats to a worse time. That is the American experience in a nutshell. That is what my book on Conservatism is about, working through our history step by step comparing and contrasting those two opposing views The contrast is quite starke.
That liberals don't think we should obey laws is NOT a reason to ignore our laws. That liberals willingly and intentionally violate them is NOT a reason to ignore them.
If that's what you are calling "partisan" I'm glad to be partisan.
If you have never committed (not necessarily been convicted) of the following list of crimes similar to crossing the border illegally, then you have no right to pass judgement on those who have.
Petty theft
Disorderly conduct
Trespassing
Vandalism
Simple assault
Public intoxication
Reckless driving
Domestic violence (sometimes misdemeanor level)
Possession of controlled substances
Perjury
Prostitution
Indecent exposure
DUI
Exhibition of speed or speed contest
Traffic violations
Drug charges
Disturbing the peace
Assault
Jaywalking (in some states)
How does that Christian saying go? "He who is without sin cast the first stone.". Y'all might think about that before throwing stones at mothers with kids who hold down a job and pay taxes who happened to have been brought across the border when they were five years old.In the United States, citizens are governed by our laws, and non-citizens are required to follow those same laws, in addition to specific laws that apply uniquely to non-citizens. When those laws are broken, the legal consequence can include deportation, just as citizens face legally defined penalties when we violate the law.
Your analogy falls short because it ignores this distinction. Non-citizens are subject not only to general criminal statutes, but also to immigration laws that explicitly govern their presence in the country. Enforcement of those laws is not hypocrisy; it is the application of the legal framework that exists by design.
That saying is about personal judgment, not the suspension of law or accountability. A society cannot function if laws are ignored based on sympathy or individual backstories. Compassion and enforcement are not mutually exclusive.
No one is “throwing stones.” We’re talking about legal standards and due process, not personal condemnation. Immigration cases are reviewed individually, with hearings, evidence, appeals, and discretion built into the system. That is the compassionate safeguard.
Being brought here as a child, having children, holding a job, or paying taxes does not negate the existence of immigration law, nor does it create legal status. Those facts may be considered in policy debates or prosecutorial discretion, but they do not erase statutory requirements.
Invoking religious language to silence disagreement is not a substitute for legal reasoning. You are appealing to emotion to override law, then labeling enforcement as cruelty. That may feel morally satisfying, but it is not how a constitutional system operates.
If the argument is that the law should be changed, that’s a legitimate debate. But until it is changed, applying the law is not hypocrisy, and enforcing it is not “casting stones.” It is governance.
Here is hypocrisy from another angle. In vetoing these to BIPARTISAN bills, Trump, "the felon" says:
"“Enough is enough. My Administration is committed to preventing American taxpayers from funding expensive and unreliable policies. Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts and restoring fiscal sanity is vital to economic growth and the fiscal health of the Nation,” Trump said in a message to Congress, explaining his veto of one of the bills, H.R. 131, which aims to lower the payments certain communities in Colorado make for the construction of a water pipeline.
The other bill vetoed, H.R. 504, would expand the land reserved for the Miccosukee Tribe in Florida and instruct the Department of Interior to work with the tribe to mitigate flooding in the added area."
Yet he continues to waste $12,500 per immigrant deported (if he gets to his million, then that will be $12.5 BILLION). 70% - 80% were otherwise law-abiding TAX PAYING people helping America prosper. This doesn't count the cost of non-ICE federal officials diverted from their counter-intelligence and other jobs so they can go terrorize innocent people - that is estimated a another $5 Billion. It also doesn't count the $2.5 BILLION spent on scaring people into self-deporting.
Finally, there is the loss of tax revenue and the cost to companies as they adjust to a lower workforce. For taxes, it is estimated to be $9.5 to $76 BILLION Annually, depending on how many people get taken out of the workforce.
Yep, that is clearly hypocrisy.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/31/politics … lls-vetoesDid you know that Latinos make up more than 50% of Border Patrol agents and 24% of ICE agents?
I took a quick look at what Trump is costing America in his attempt to reduce the number of Brown people here. From Grok
The mass deportation efforts under the Trump administration in 2025 have severely impacted industries reliant on immigrant labor, leading to worker shortages, higher costs, and economic disruptions. Below, I'll outline the most affected sectors based on recent analyses, focusing on agriculture, construction, and hospitality as the hardest hit. These effects stem from the removal of an estimated 1-2 million workers (mostly undocumented), causing labor gaps that U.S.-born workers haven't filled quickly enough.
jec.senate.gov +2
Other sectors like child care and manufacturing are also affected, but to a lesser degree.
epi.org
Agriculture This industry has been hit hardest, with immigrants comprising up to 50-70% of the workforce (e.g., farm laborers and crop pickers).
civileats.com +1
Impacts include: Worker Shortages: Employment dropped by 155,000 workers from March to July 2025, leading to unharvested crops and higher food prices (e.g., produce costs up 5-10%). - my wife has been complaining about soaring food prices at her local food store.
americanimmigrationcouncil.org +1
Economic Losses: Mass deportations could reduce agricultural output by 225,000 jobs and billions in revenue, with farms facing labor gaps despite Trump's concessions for easier guest worker hiring (e.g., reduced pay requirements).
stateline.org +1
Broader Effects: Delays in planting/harvesting have rippled to food supply chains, exacerbating inflation.
nationalskillscoalition.org
Construction Immigrants make up 25-30% of the workforce, often in roles like laborers and tradespeople.
epi.org +1
Deportations have caused: Labor Shortages: Potential loss of 1.5 million jobs, with project delays and higher wages (up 5-15%) to attract U.S.-born workers.
epi.org +1
Economic Impacts: Increased construction costs (e.g., housing prices up 3-5%), reduced GDP growth, and job losses for U.S.-born workers in related sectors.
jec.senate.gov +1
Mitigation Efforts: Some industries lobbied for exemptions, but shortages persist in states like Texas and Florida.
abic.us
Hospitality (Including Hotels, Restaurants, and Services)This sector relies on immigrants for 20-40% of jobs, particularly in low-wage roles like housekeeping and food service.
abic.us +1
Key impacts:Worker Shortages: Disruptions from raids led to staffing gaps, with hotels and restaurants reporting 10-20% employment drops in affected areas.
abic.us +1
Economic Effects: Higher labor costs (wages up 8-12%) passed to consumers as price hikes; reduced service quality and business closures in immigrant-heavy regions.
jec.senate.gov +1
Broader Ripples: Tourism and food industries saw slowed growth, with estimates of billions in lost revenue.
jec.senate.gov +1
Overall, these industries could face $100-200 billion in annual losses if deportations continue at scale, with ripple effects on U.S.-born workers and the economy.
jec.senate.gov +1Don’t you think it’s only fair that those of you who insist “the book should be thrown at all lawbreakers—Trump included” also vote to raise your own taxes to fund hundreds more police?
If you truly believe the law is the law and that only the law matters, then you should vote to raise your local taxes so you can hire enough officers to set up permanent roadblocks and enforcement details to ensure:
* every expired-tag/expired-registration driver is stopped and fined to the maximum extent of the law (analogous to immigrants who overstay a visa), and
* every unlicensed or suspended-license driver is arrested and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law (analogous to immigrants who cross between checkpoints).
No excuses. No context. No “hard luck” stories. The law is the law—and if you or your neighbor gets caught up in it, too bad.
If that sounds harsh and stupid when applied to your neighbors—good. Now apply that same “no circumstances matter” mindset to immigration and ask yourself why it suddenly feels virtuous there.
I used to use speeding as my example because speeding is often more dangerous than, say, a mother crossing the border with her daughter. Speeding may be “only” an infraction while illegal entry is a misdemeanor—but on average, the speeder is a more immediate danger to other people than the mother and child. Yet you won’t lift a finger to create a local enforcement crusade against speeders, expired tags, or suspended licenses. Instead, you’ll spend billions of taxpayer dollars on mass enforcement aimed at people who are, in daily life, largely law-abiding except for their immigration status.
To me, that’s hypocrisy—along with a shortage of moral courage.Yikes----
I don’t accept this analogy because it collapses under even minimal scrutiny. I’m not arguing that every law must be enforced identically, blindly, or without discretion. I’m arguing that immigration law is a federal sovereignty issue, not a local nuisance offense. Comparing it to expired tags or speeding tickets trivializes what borders, citizenship, and national law actually are.
Speeding, expired tags, and suspended licenses are domestic regulatory violations by citizens already subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Illegal entry and visa overstays involve people who entered or remained without legal authorization, outside the consent of the governed. That distinction isn’t emotional; it’s foundational. Every nation on earth enforces borders without needing to pretend that doing so requires “no context” absolutism in every other area of law.
The claim that enforcement requires permanent roadblocks and maximal punishment is a straw man. Immigration enforcement already operates on prioritization—criminal records, fraud, repeat violations, and national security risks. Wanting immigration law enforced does not mean I support mindless, zero-discretion policing of every minor infraction in daily life. That’s your false equivalence, not my position.
And the “mother and child” framing is emotional manipulation. Policy is not built on anecdotal virtue stories; it’s built on scale, incentives, and consequences. When you selectively decline to enforce immigration law, you don’t just exempt sympathetic cases; you incentivize more illegal entry, overwhelm systems, depress wages at the bottom, strain schools and hospitals, and disrespect those who followed the law to immigrate legally.
Finally, there’s no hypocrisy in expecting the federal government to enforce federal law while opposing higher local taxes and expanded police power over citizens. That’s called coherent governance, not moral cowardice. The real inconsistency is demanding borders be treated like optional suggestions while insisting critics must first embrace authoritarian local policing to be “morally pure” enough to speak.
That argument isn’t courageous, it’s careless.
The army Trump "the Felon" sent into Minneapolis combat fraud with bullets and truncheons got their first kill today. They claimed they shot a 38-year old woman who they said was attacking them with her car. They have lied about that before and the major is saying they lied about it this as well.
Also know the almost ALL the Somalis in that area are US Citizens. Why 2,000 federal agents if not to terrorize the population?
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnes … 6qp7b4uzf0Refugee Resettlement under Obama:
During President Obama’s two terms (2009–2017), the United States resettled tens of thousands of Somali refugees. According to State Department data, about 54,500 Somali refugees were resettled in the U.S. during his presidency. Of those, around 6,320 went to Minnesota specifically. This is based on official refugee processing records and has been confirmed by fact‑checking sources.
Bottom line: ICE is more visible in Minnesota right now because the administration has announced it wants to end Somali TPS protections and that these individuals will be deported.
I am confident that our legal system will handle the death of the protester.Our DOIJ will whitewash it. The MN legal system needs to get involved. It looks very much like murder to me - they shot her in the back while she was trying to flee.
You have been fooled again Sharlee. At most there are only about 700 Somalis under TPS nationwide, So, if that is the reason you are relying on, you are relying on a lie. So, what do we have - 2,000 federal agents to track down a few dozen Somalis who are here legally since they still have TPS status.
I don't know what your point is with the other numbers you recited - 91% of those are US citizens. THEY are Trump's and your targets.One or seven hundred, if someone is here illegally, it is ICE’s job to arrest and detain them pending deportation. That responsibility does not change based on numbers, optics, or political pressure.
As for the 2,000 agents, given the protests and open hostility on the ground, they are necessary not only to carry out operations efficiently but to provide adequate force protection for agents in the field. Law enforcement cannot function if it is deliberately understaffed and left vulnerable to violence or intimidation.
These agents are doing their jobs by enforcing laws that Congress passed. I prefer that our laws be enforced consistently. I do not pick and choose which laws I want enforced based on emotion or ideology.
I’ll go one step further: if protests turn unlawful and authorities refuse to maintain order, I would support deploying the military to any area where protesters refuse to abide by the law. Peaceful protest is protected; lawlessness is not.Those types of numbers scream intent to terrorize. Yes, you do pick an choose. Every time you ignore Trump's felony convictions you are treating him differently than Somalis who have 90% chance of being here LEGALLY.
Those kinds of numbers signal intent to terrorize. Yes, you do pick and choose. Every time you ignore Trump’s felony convictions, you are treating him differently than Somalis, whom you claim have a 90% chance of being here legally. ECO
Your point may appear logical on the surface, but my viewpoint is grounded in our laws. I hope facts prevail over emotion. When it comes to our laws, one person or seven hundred makes no difference. If someone is in this country illegally, the law stipulates that they can be deported. If our legal system has determined that a person does not have lawful status to remain, they must use the appeals process available to them. Once due process has been exhausted, they are required to leave.
ICE is the agency tasked with identifying individuals who are in the country illegally, detaining them, and carrying out deportations. ICE officers are law enforcement officers. Citizens have the right to protest, yes, but ICE also operates under a clear set of laws. It is equally clear that many individuals do not follow those laws, which directly interferes with ICE’s ability to do its job and creates additional risk. This is not a complicated issue, nor is it one that should be obscured by numbers or unrelated factors. It is cut and dry.
Trump is the president. He was elected by a legal majority of votes, and the decision of whom to vote for rests with each individual voter. The media has exhaustively reported on Trump, every court case, every charge, and every appeal still pending.
“Trump’s felony convictions—you are treating him differently than Somalis who have a 90% chance of being here legally.” ECO
Trump was charged under our laws and was afforded due process. Your analogy makes no sense. Citing a statistic that claims 90% of Somalis are here legally has no relevance to those who are not here legally. The two issues are entirely separate. What you are attempting to do is justify working around our laws. In my view, that argument is nonsensical.
The context of your comment and your analogy make it clear that you are arguing, based on other factors, such as the number of illegal Somalis, that we should simply choose not to enforce our laws.
You don't need to look past Trump-Noem cutting out MN authorities in the sham "investigation" into the murder of Renee Good, white mother of three who had JUST dropped her 6-year old off at school to know for sure that they are covering up the agent's crime.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/politics … g-playbookWait, the school thing ... "Just" in all caps? You must think that's important. I heard a BBC presenter say the same thing. Something doesn't add up.
You said JUST dropped off ..., BBC said just returning from dropping off ...
Neither adds up to the video or media explanations.
If she was 'just' returning, why was her vehicle parked perpendicular to traffic flow in a residential neighborhood? What about the media description (coming from on-scene witnesses?) of her as a "Legal Observer" or "on-scene legal observer"? Where did the claims that she had been there for 'hours?' (made by the gov) come from? Any witness verification?
Also, and this part isn't confirmed: Media is reporting that the voice yelling and cursing on the video is her 'partner.' If so, what's up with that if she was just returning from the school?
I don't know, but that part doesn't sound right to me. But, it involves a child, a mother, and death with Federal involvement, so I can see why you would promote it.
That isn't directed at the victim, it's directed at the folks spinning facts to serve an agenda. DHS is doing it now—the terrorism claim is CYA BS, but so is yours.
Remember, I'm just going by headlines and what I see in the videos; I haven't dug into anything, so take it easy on me when you show me the facts that prove you're right.
GA ;-)The JUST refers to Noem's lie that Good had been stalking ICE "throughout the day" - she was killed at 9.37 AM.
I see your reference, but it doesn't work. There was no "Noem statement" context in either your or the BBC's statements (I heard it from the BBC first, which is why your use of it stood out). Nope, "JUST" was an anti-Ice talking point that you picked up and ran with.
The "9:37" point would be relative to the school (7:30-9:30 start times). She could have 'just' dropped him off and raced back to the scene, or more typically, the 'just' could have been as much as 2 hours earlier, leaving time for her and her partner to do what it appears they intended to do. Harass ICE agents.
I think the "Just" descriptions are intentionally misleading. The 'throughout the day' part is an exaggeration, but if she/they had been doing it for a couple hours ... I can see the stretch.
GAMy guess is you haven't read the previous posts about Noem in this or the Authoritarian forum. Had you, you would have picked up on the context.
I have followed the thread and saw the 'Trump-Noem' mention in your comment. Are you saying you were just exaggerating to counter her exaggeration? The BBC match-up was just a coincidence?
Nope. I still think it was a battle of exaggerated talking points. Both wrong.
GAJust so the readers can get back on point.
Noem said Good had been stalking ICE all day long. - That was a LIE.
Good dropped of her kid in the morning and drove home. Along the way, a few minutes later, she ran into ICE harassing citizens. She stop and few minutes before being killed to record what was going on. That fits the definition of "Just".Why did she block traffic? Why did her partner get out of the car and proceed to have a back-and-forth with ICE agents? Why did Good not give her partner time to hop back in the car? She was attempting to reach for the door handle as Good sped away and hit the ICE officer.
Oddly, you may have omitted all that the video clearly shows. Why are you ruminating on her dropping off her child? That is a well-known fact. What has not been shared is what time she dropped the child off... Do you know what time she dropped off her child?Well, new video adds detail. It looks like you are more right than wrong — time-wise. But not intent-wise. It doesn't appear to be a happenstance encounter; it appears purposeful.
GAWhy did she block traffic? Why did her partner get out of the car and proceed to have a back-and-forth with ICE agents? Why did Good not give her partner time to hop back in the car? She was attempting to reach for the door handle as Good sped away and hit the ICE officer.
Oddly, you may have omitted all that the video clearly shows. Why are you ruminating on her dropping off her child? That is a well-known fact. What has not been shared is what time she dropped the child off... Do you know what time she dropped off her child?Shar,
Read below about the people that democrats and liberals are working so hard to protect. Child rapists and killers to name a few. It does say a lot about liberals and the democrat party and it says nothing good about them.
ICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
Criminal illegal immigrants had deportation orders dating back decades
FIRST ON FOX: ICE officials on Saturday released a shocking list of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested during their recent surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, including child rapists and nearly a dozen killers.
ICE told Fox News the criminal illegal immigrants were roaming freely in Minnesota prior to their recent arrest, and that they are the type of people Democratic politicians and activists are referring to as their "neighbors," as they attempt to interfere with ICE.
"Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere," ICE director Todd M. Lyons wrote in a statement. "Some of these criminal aliens have had final orders of removal for 30 years, but they’ve been free to terrorize Minnesotans."
"ICE’s arrests prevent recidivism and make communities safer, but it feels like local politicians want to ignore that part and drum up discontent rather than protect their own constituents," he continued.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted to the arrests on X Saturday, calling the convicts "sick people."
"This is why we have ICE Agents," Leavitt wrote in the post. "May God Bless them for their thankless work to protect American communities from these sick people."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a photo of a plane on X Saturday captioned, "Lawbreakers going wheels up in Minneapolis."
Some of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested in Minnesota include:
Sriudorn Phaivan
Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and strong-arm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery. He also has pending charges for two counts of receiving stolen property, flight to avoid prosecution or confinement and burglary.
Phaivan has had a deportation order since 2018.
Tou Vang
Tou Vang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under the age of 13, and procuring a child for prostitution.
Vang has had a deportation order since 2006.
Chong Vue
Chong Vue, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of the strong-arm rape of a 12-year-old girl, and kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her.
Vue has had a deportation order since 2004.
Ge Yang
Ge Yang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm rape, aggravated assault with a weapon, and strangulation.
Yang has had a deportation order since 2012.
Pao Choua Xiong
Pao Choua Xiong, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape and child fondling.
Xiong has had a deportation order since 2003.
Kou Lor
Kou Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape, rape with a weapon, and sexual assault.
Lor has had a deportation order since 1996.
Hernan Cortes-Valencia
Hernan Cortes-Valencia, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault of a child and DUI.
Cortes-Valencia has had a deportation order since 2016.
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde, a Salvadoran illegal immigrant, was convicted of three counts of homicide.
Landaverde has had a deportation order since June 2025.
Gabriel Figueroa Gama
Gabriel Figueroa Gama, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gama was previously deported in 2002.
Galuak Michael Rotgai
Galuak Michael Rotgai, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Thai Lor
Thai Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Lor has had a deportation order since 2009.
Mariana Sia Kanu
Mariana Sia Kanu, an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Kanu has had a deportation order since 2022.
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Munoz has had a deportation order since 2015.
Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed
Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of manslaughter.
Ahmed has had a deportation order since 2022.
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of attempt to commit homicide, weapon possession and DUI.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-ar … ts-killersMike, I just read and shared the same article, and honestly, it made my stomach turn. What’s especially disturbing is that these are the kinds of people some protesters are defending and trying to prevent from being detained and deported. The situation in Minnesota right now has exposed a serious problem, and to me it highlights a lot about where many liberals and the Democratic Party stand, and frankly, I don’t see anything admirable in it.
It feels like values have been turned completely upside down, right is wrong and wrong is right. That kind of thinking has been drilled into people’s minds until they accept it without question. This is purely my view, and I’m not afraid to share it.
It’s time to confront these behaviors and attitudes head‑on. We have a country to save, and we can’t do that by looking the other way.
When did we ever say, “Bring us your criminals, your depraved, your mentally ill?” That’s not what America stands for, and it never should.
Anyone here deemed illegal needs to be deported.Shar,
Sometimes we have to laugh. I think this is part of the topic but really funny.
Baby Trump Visits Minnesota & The Somalian Daycares! Ft. Ilhan Omar and Tim Walz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc5vwFBwSC8Now that is a keeper, right on the money from start to finish. Honestly, what’s next? It’s unbelievable that this horrendous theft of government cash is still on the back burner, while people with TDS are running wild over a protester who hit a law officer, portraying her as Mother of the year, and that’s getting more attention than real graft and corruption.
Thanks for sharing the video, I needed a laugh and a reminder of how to prioritize what’s actually going on right now. Suddenly, a protester barely matters, and I’m reminded again about perhaps the biggest scam ever pulled on taxpayers ever, and a governor who apparently knew about it and ignored it despite repeated reports. Yet for some reason, I feel really stoked about the upcoming year and see a lot of good coming our way.
Not long after the probably murder of Minneapolis mother of three Renee Good, two more people were shot by federal agents (CBP) in Portland, OR. The only thing known about the victims is that they survived and were married.
The gov't has come out with their standard lie (just like with Trump, you can't believe a word that comes out of their mouth unless independently verified) that this was a "targeted" operation and that victims were Tren de Aragua and that they tried to run over the agents.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portl … ooting-hnkHere is what has been reported so far, not speculation. DHS has stated that federal agents were conducting a targeted vehicle stop when the driver allegedly attempted to run them over, at which point an agent fired a defensive shot. DHS further reported that the individuals involved were in the country illegally and were suspected of gang affiliation. Both individuals were wounded, fled the scene, and were later found and transported to a hospital. The FBI is now leading the investigation into the incident. Importantly, there has been no official public confirmation regarding whether the individuals were formally arrested, detained, charged, released, or deported following medical treatment. Until authorities release more information, claims beyond this, on either side, go beyond what has actually been reported.
"The Department of Homeland Security said the vehicle’s passenger was “a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the transnational Tren de Aragua prostitution ring” who was involved in a recent shooting in the city. When agents identified themselves to the occupants during a “targeted vehicle stop” in the afternoon, the driver tried to run them over, the department said in a statement."
Trump's terror campaign on America
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/01 … tests-vis/Why hasn't the other side criticized Trump for bold-faced lying about Renee Good "running over and hospitalizing" the agent who killed her? Is it because they are embarrassed to admit that love a pathological liar?
Why hasn't the other side criticized Noem for bold-faced lying about Renee Good "stalking ICE" and being a "domestic terrorist" when she JUST dropped off her 6-yo son at school? [b[Is it because they are embarrassed to admit she lies at the drop of a hat?[/b]I must ask--- Where did you get the information that leads you to believe Noem lied about Good stalking ICE throughout that morning? Do you feel she lied at the press conference she gave? I did offer the link to that press conference. I don't believe she lied.
More information about Ms. Good is surfacing about her affiliation with an activist group. There was also more footage released today that clearly shows the officer was hit. The footage was from his body cam.This was all over the MSM. She said this "“[She] had been stalking and impeding their work all throughout the day.”" - Good was "killed" at 9:37 AM!!! Prior to that she dropped her son at school about about a mile and half away before driving to her meeting with her executioner.
So, will you claim that Noem wasn't lying when she said Good had been stalking ICE agents she didn't know ALL DAY?
Another fact you got wrong - he wasn't wearing a body cam. He waving around a cell phone and then taking out a gun in his other hand to kill Good.
Also, your ad hominin attack on a dead woman, using unnamed sources whose veracity is unknown is unbecoming
If you want, we can get into her lie about Good being a domestic terrorist.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/minneapolis-i … hatgpt.comI will claim I believe Noem, and feel she was giving an accurate account of what Good had done that day. I feel she represents the truth.
"Also, your ad hominin attack on a dead woman, using unnamed sources whose veracity is unknown is unbecoming: ECO
Again --
"More information about Ms. Good is surfacing about her affiliation with an activist group. There was also more footage released today that clearly shows the officer was hit. The footage was from his body cam." Shar
This is widely being reported. I did not accuse Good of anything, simply reported what the media is sharing. My content is very clear, what remains very clear, you just do not comprehened context, and lash out when you misunderstand it. Your reputation for doing this is very clear.
One would think you would recognize this fault. Where it should be embarrassing, each time it is pointed out, it seems you choose to ignore your given fault. Maybe read and reread a comment before responding to pick up contexts.
I don't find a link but I went and looked it up;
LIE 1: “She was ‘stalking and impeding’ ICE agents all day.”
LIE 2: “She ‘weaponized’ her SUV and ‘attempted to run a law-enforcement officer over’.” - IN FACT, she turned the steering wheel to the right to AVOID hitting her assassin.
LIE 3: “This was an ‘act of domestic terrorism’.” - PURE defamatory BS.
I am sure these will be brought up at the wrongful death suit her family will bring.
Here is a minute by minute time line that ChatGPT put together (with my notes)
Before the confrontation
~9:30–9:34 a.m. CT (approx.) — Reporting says Renee Good had just dropped her son at school and encountered an ongoing ICE operation in the neighborhood while driving home. Precise drop-off time hasn’t been released.
The approach to the car
9:35:05 a.m. — Good’s Honda Pilot is stopped diagonally on Portland Ave; cross-traffic passes. Agents begin walking toward the SUV as bystanders whistle and yell. - It is still unclear why she was stopped diagonally across the road as to opposed elsewhere to record ICE activity. She had been there long enough for her partner to get out of the car and start filming. In any case, there are reasons she was stuck there, but not likely. Nevertheless, the penalty is a ticket and not a bullet to the face.
9:36:51 (–22s) — A woman later identified as Good’s partner is behind the SUV, filming and speaking with an agent; the SUV inches slightly, then stops. That agent later moves to the front-left of the Honda. That agent was violating protocol. He is not supposed to position himself in front of a car, let alone a moving one. That will come out at a trial
9:36:58 (–15s) — A Ford Explorer pulls out; Good waves it past. An unmarked Nissan Titan with two agents stops in the lane with lights on.
The close contact
9:37:08 (–5s) — Two agents from the Titan exit and approach, ordering “get out of the car.” The Honda is put in reverse a few feet. One agent places left hand on the driver’s window frame and right hand on the door handle, appearing to try to open it. Another agent positions at the front-left of the Honda.
9:37:12 (~–1s) — In the shooter’s own phone video, Good turns the steering wheel to the right, away from the agent at the front-left, as the SUV begins to move slowly forward. Careful frame-by-frame and time comparison analysis establishes no agent was hit by Good's car and in fact she was taking measures not to hit anyone There are reports that she was told to move the car, but there is no verified audio of such a command.
The shots and immediate aftermath
9:37:13 — The front-left agent draws and fires three shots in rapid succession (first→second 399 ms, second→third 299 ms). His left hand is still holding a phone while his right hand fires. Again, a breach of DHS policy given there were non-targets in the line of fire - Policy-wise, this is exactly why DHS rules stress knowing what’s beyond the target and generally prohibit shooting at a moving vehicle unless there’s an imminent lethal threat and no safer alternative—because over-penetration, glass/metal spall, and deflection can injure anyone in that cone.
9:37:16 — The Honda crashes into a parked car and then rolls into the snow by a tree. The partner rushes to the SUV; the agent walks toward it, then steps back and says “call 911.”
9:42:03 — Good is still in the vehicle; bystanders ask to let a physician check her; agents denied that saying medics are on the way. The agents did not try to help as policy states that should.
9:43:14 — Fire/EMS arrive and begin extracting and treating Good.
9:45:30 — Good is carried to the corner for CPR and then into an ambulance a few minutes later.
Post-incident statements (same morning/afternoon)
10:26 — City of Minneapolis posts initial alert about a shooting involving federal law enforcement near E 34th St & Portland Ave.
10:46–11:45 — DHS, issue statements; DHS characterizes lies Good as having “weaponized her vehicle” and calls it “domestic terrorism.” In less than two hours Trump and Noem had completed their investigation and declared Good, the victim, guilty - no further legitimate investigation needed!
In my opinion, this was negligent homicide if not murder.An interesting take on it all, if not particularly truthful.
"Nevertheless, the penalty is a ticket and not a bullet to the face." We can start here, with your insinuation that she was killed for parking wrong. You know, everyone knows, that is not true; she was killed for driving her car into an ICE agent.
"Careful frame-by-frame and time comparison analysis establishes no agent was hit by Good's car" This one is a flat out lie, for the agent WAS struck with the car, and was folded over the fender/hood by the impact. In addition, while the car did not race forward (road ice prevented that), it did not move slowly forward like you state in your effort to "prove" innocence. It moved about as rapidly as it could on the slick road, with wheels spinning at one point.
You make sure to point out that the agent erred several times, but there was nothing illegal in what he did. Not the smartest, and his bruises were the cost, but not illegal either. On the other hand, what the woman did WAS illegal - she blocked traffic, she refused to stop her engne, she refused to exit the car, she ran her car into someone and finally she attempted to murder a cop. All illegal actions, with high punishment ranging from a ticket to prison time. None of which applies because her stupidity provided for her punishment without resorting to the courts.
Finally you exclaim that it is all lies that Good "weaponized" her car, yet the videos very plainly show that to be so. She ran into the agent, that action was either very, very intentional or very, very careless. Either way it was very, very stupid and she paid the price. The agent, ICE, Trump and the entire justice system did absolutely nothing illegal. Only Good.
Then the question becomes "why did Eso make such false statements?", and the only answer I can see is TDS. They aren't the first ones, and they won't be the last lies he makes in the eternal attempt to vilify his President.It would be helpful if you understood sarcasm, but you don't.
What is a lie, however, is saying: "she was killed for driving her car into an ICE agent." I have proven that repeatedly now, so I won't bother here.
I'll let ChatGPT answer your next lie regarding "folded over the hood" -
What the public evidence shows (so far):
No verified clip shows the agent being struck or “folded over the hood.” The best frame-by-frame analysis (ABC News) synchronizes multiple angles and documents the agent at the driver’s window/door handle, then firing three shots from the left/front-left as the SUV begins a low-speed move with the steering wheel turned right (away from him). There is no clear impact-on-hood moment in the released videos.
Speed characterization: The same ABC breakdown and network replays describe slow/creeping movement just prior to the shots. “Wheels spinning/rapid lurch” is an assertion, not what the vetted timelines state. (If someone has different footage, they should produce it.)
Critical detail the claim ignores: The shooter’s left hand is still holding a phone while his right hand fires—captured in the agent’s own cellphone video—hardly consistent with being “folded over a hood” at that instant.
What remains unknown: The FBI controls forensics (trajectories, bullet recovery, injury documentation). Until that’s released, “he was hit by the car” is unverified. Strong claims need evidence, not caps-lock.
Bottom line: The public videos don’t show an agent being struck or draped over the hood, and they do show shots fired while the car is turning away at low speed and the agent is still holding a phone. If there’s proof to the contrary, it isn’t in the record yet—cite the footage or the forensics, otherwise it’s just admit you made that up..
Your next paragraph is also choke full of lies. So, again, I will let ChatGPT pull together the relevant facts in order to present a truthful narrative:
I never said the agent broke the law (aside from the shooting itself); I said he violated DHS/ICE policy. That matters. DHS policy strongly restricts shooting at or into moving vehicles—it’s allowed only if there’s an imminent threat of death/serious injury and no safer alternative, and officers are expected to avoid creating the hazard and consider what’s beyond the target (bystanders/partner/other agents).
On the facts we can actually see, ABC’s frame-by-frame shows the agent at the driver’s door seconds before firing, and the driver turning the wheel to the right (away) just before shots—while the agent’s left hand is still on his phone as he fires. That’s precisely the kind of backdrop/vehicle scenario DHS policy says to treat with maximum caution, not gunfire by default.
So yes: her parking may have been a traffic offense—we don’t know yet why the car was angled—but traffic violations and noncompliance are adjudicated, not answered with bullets. The legal question is whether the agent met the deadly-force standard; the policy question is whether he followed DHS rules designed to prevent exactly this kind of outcome. On both counts, the public record so far gives serious reasons to doubt the “everything was fine” narrative.
Same format for your last set of lies;
You’re asserting facts the public record doesn’t support.
“She weaponized her car / ran into the agent.”
The best frame-by-frame reconstruction (ABC) shows the agent at the driver’s door, then three shots fired from the [i]front-left as the SUV begins a low-speed move with the steering wheel turned right—away from him. There’s no verified clip of the agent being struck or “folded over the hood.” If you have such footage, cite it; it’s not in the vetted timelines.
“It didn’t move slowly.”
Multiple synchronized reviews describe slow/creeping movement before the shots; none corroborate a “full-lurch on ice” claim. Again—show the evidence if it exists.
Crucial detail you’re omitting: In the shooter’s own cellphone angle, his left hand is still holding a phone while his right hand fires. That hardly squares with being “hit and folded over the hood” at the trigger moment.
Policy vs. law matters.
DHS use-of-force rules presume you do not shoot at or into a moving vehicle unless there’s an imminent threat of death/serious injury and no safer alternative, and warn officers to avoid tactics that create the hazard and to account for bystanders/backdrop. That’s the standard this will be judged against—not “she annoyed an agent.”
“Agent, ICE, Trump, and the entire justice system did nothing illegal—only Good.”
The investigation isn’t done. In fact, the FBI has excluded Minnesota’s BCA from co-leading and withheld case materials, so definitive forensics (impact evidence, trajectories) are not public. Declaring the legal outcome now is pure speculation.
“She paid the price.”
That’s an argument against due process. Traffic/noncompliance offenses are handled by citation or arrest and court review. Lethal force is justified only under the narrow deadly-threat standard above—not as street-level “punishment.”
Bottom line: The available video record undercuts your “ramming” storyline and supports at least one clear policy concern (shooting at a moving vehicle in a bystander-rich backdrop). If stronger evidence exists, it hasn’t been released—so stop asserting what you can’t show.[/i]
Then the question becomes "why did Wilderness make such false statements?", and the only answer I can see is Cognitive Dissonance and being a member of the Trump cult..
Portland Police Chief Bob Day wiped away tears Friday as he addressed new information showing that two illegal immigrants shot during a federal immigration enforcement encounter had ties to the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).
LET'S all shed a tear!
Both Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras have been taken into federal custody after being hospitalized for the gunshot wounds they suffered when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired during a traffic stop confrontation. They remain in federal custody while they recover.
Portland Police and DHS officials have stated that both individuals were hospitalized and held by federal authorities pending further action.
Verified Court/Police Records
Luis David Nico Moncada
DUI Arrest: Court records indicate Moncada was arrested in Washington County, Oregon in November 2025 on a DUI (driving under the influence) charge.
Unauthorized Vehicle Use: That charging document also notes he was using a vehicle without the owner’s permission at the time of that arrest.
Final Order of Removal: DHS has stated he has a final order of removal (deportation) from a prior immigration case, meaning immigration judges have ordered him deported.
Protective Order: Court filings show Moncada obtained a protective order against Zambrano-Contreras in November 2025, alleging she hit him with her car and threatened him; the order was granted even though they stayed together.
Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras
Prostitution/Trafficking Referral: Washington County records show she was arrested or cited in connection with prostitution, and the case was referred to the Washington County District Attorney’s Office involving human trafficking and possible firearm offenses.
Witness in Grand Jury Proceedings: Records list her as a witness in a grand jury investigation, though specific charges from that are not publicly detailed.Minnesota has become a safe haven for criminals and violent people, and it sickens me to see it. I fully support ICE for doing the hard work of enforcing the law and keeping dangerous individuals off the streets. Let’s be clear, the real heroes here are law enforcement, not the protesters defending lawbreakers.
ICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
Criminal illegal immigrants had deportation orders dating back decades
Source https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-ar … ts-killers
FIRST ON FOX: ICE officials on Saturday released a shocking list of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested during their recent surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, including child rapists and nearly a dozen killers.
ICE told Fox News the criminal illegal immigrants were roaming freely in Minnesota prior to their recent arrest, and that they are the type of people Democratic politicians and activists are referring to as their "neighbors," as they attempt to interfere with ICE.
"Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere," ICE director Todd M. Lyons wrote in a statement. "Some of these criminal aliens have had final orders of removal for 30 years, but they’ve been free to terrorize Minnesotans."
"ICE’s arrests prevent recidivism and make communities safer, but it feels like local politicians want to ignore that part and drum up discontent rather than protect their own constituents," he continued.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted to the arrests on X Saturday, calling the convicts "sick people."
"This is why we have ICE Agents," Leavitt wrote in the post. "May God Bless them for their thankless work to protect American communities from these sick people."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a photo of a plane on X Saturday captioned, "Lawbreakers going wheels up in Minneapolis."
Some of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested in Minnesota include:
HOLD ON TO The Content Of Your Stomach
Sriudorn Phaivan
Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and strong-arm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery.
Tou Vang
Tou Vang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under the age of 13, and procuring a child for prostitution.
Chong Vue
Chong Vue, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of the strong-arm rape of a 12-year-old girl, and kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her.
Vue has had a deportation order since 2004.
Ge Yang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm rape, aggravated assault with a weapon, and strangulation.
Yang has had a deportation order since 2012.
Pao Choua Xiong
Pao Choua Xiong, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape and child fondling.
Xiong has had a deportation order since 2003.
Kou Lor
Kou Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape, rape with a weapon, and sexual assault.
Lor has had a deportation order since 1996.
Hernan Cortes-Valencia
Hernan Cortes-Valencia, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault of a child and DUI.
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde, a Salvadoran illegal immigrant, was convicted of three counts of homicide.
Landaverde has had a deportation order since June 2025.
Gabriel Figueroa Gama
Gabriel Figueroa Gama, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gama was previously deported in 2002.
Galuak Michael Rotgai
Galuak Michael Rotgai, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Thai Lor
Thai Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Lor has had a deportation order since 2009.
Mariana Sia Kanu
Mariana Sia Kanu, an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Kanu has had a deportation order since 2022.
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Munoz has had a deportation order since 2015.
Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of manslaughter.
Ahmed has had a deportation order since 2022.
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of attempt to commit homicide, weapon possession and DUI.
Aler Gomez Lucas
Aler Gomez Lucas, a Guatemalan illegal immigrant, was convicted of negligent homicide with a vehicle and DUI.
Lucas has had a deportation order since 2022.
Shwe Htoo
Shwe Htoo, a Burmese illegal immigrant, was convicted of negligent homicide.New information released
Renee Nicole Good, who was fatally shot Wednesday while allegedly obstructing an ICE operation, was seen in newly surfaced video repeatedly honking her car horn and dancing to the noise minutes before the shooting.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/20100745542 … -1-10-2026
Footage shows ICE vehicles attempting to drive down the street, with police lights and sirens activated, as Good's SUV blocked the road for more than three minutes.
The video ended as ICE agents got out of their pickup truck, approached the SUV, and gunfire rang out.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the video on X, calling Good a "leftist insurrectionist."
"Remember when the media called Abrego Garcia an innocent 'Maryland Man,' when he was actually an illegal alien, human trafficker, wife beater, and gang member?" Leavitt wrote in a post. "Minnesota is a different case, but the legacy media is running the same playbook. This woman was not 'an innocent mother dropping off her child at school.' She was a leftist insurrectionist who was purposefully and illegally obstructing law enforcement operations. More evidence here."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also shared the video, alleging Good was "stalking and imeding" law enforcement.
"The media continues to fail the American people in their reporting on the events in Minneapolis," DHS wrote in an X post. "New evidence shows that the anti-ICE agitator was STALKING and IMPEDING a law enforcement operation over the course of the morning. The evidence speaks for itself."
The White House and DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment regarding the timing of when shots were fired.
Renee Nicole Good, who was fatally shot Wednesday while allegedly obstructing an ICE operation, was seen in newly surfaced video repeatedly honking her car horn and dancing to the noise minutes before the shooting.
Footage shows ICE vehicles attempting to drive down the street, with police lights and sirens activated, as Good's SUV blocked the road for more than three minutes.
The video ended as ICE agents got out of their pickup truck, approached the SUV, and gunfire rang out.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the video on X, calling Good a "leftist insurrectionist."
"Remember when the media called Abrego Garcia an innocent 'Maryland Man,' when he was actually an illegal alien, human trafficker, wife beater, and gang member?" Leavitt wrote in a post. "Minnesota is a different case, but the legacy media is running the same playbook. This woman was not 'an innocent mother dropping off her child at school.' She was a leftist insurrectionist who was purposefully and illegally obstructing law enforcement operations. More evidence here."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also shared the video, alleging Good was "stalking and imeding" law enforcement.
"The media continues to fail the American people in their reporting on the events in Minneapolis," DHS wrote in an X post. "New evidence shows that the anti-ICE agitator was STALKING and IMPEDING a law enforcement operation over the course of the morning. The evidence speaks for itself."
The White House and DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment regarding the timing of when shots were fired.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/minne … -1-10-2026So let's kill everyone who is honking their horn when an ICE agent is around - OMG.
Or maybe just arrest them for breaking the law. We have laws regarding protesting. And it would seem Ms. Good and her partner felt they could break those laws. Unfortunately, Good did not just get out of the car when the order was given by an officer of the law. She was impeding a Federal officer in the line of their duty. I would think she just made a poor choice, which accelerated and led to her death.
Your comments have made it very clear that you feel one can pick and choose what laws to follow. You can feel assured you are not alone LOL
And what stinking hell-hole did Leavitt and Noem crawl out of in order to spread such disgusting lies? They need to crawl back.
I see no need to insult Noem or Leavitt. I think many people view those protesting against ICE as insurrectionists because they appear unwilling to follow the law. I fully support the right to protest, but not the right to break laws while doing so. In my view, selectively deciding which laws to follow can reasonably be labeled insurrectionist behavior, especially when federal laws are being violated.
FINALLY, states are starting to try to reign in the reign of terror Trump is visiting on America with his personal police force of armed thugs.
They are beginning to pass anti-mask laws and put up dashboards that track ICE and CBP activities.
"“To me, this goes beyond immigration,” she said. “People understand now that masked, armed men in our city and suburban streets [are] seriously eroding any form of public trust in law enforcement. " - State Sen Fahy
From where I sit "eroded" would be the proper tense. After 78 years of respecting federal law enforcement (minus the J. Edgar Hoover years) I can say I have no faith left in them at all. To me, they are no different than Hitler's Gestapo or Putin's law enforcement. I will be long dead before the public will ever trust federal law enforcement again - if ever. Trump has done irreparable harm to this nation.
Other actions are - "In conservative Tennessee, a lawmaker has filed legislation that would prohibit federal immigration enforcement actions on school property. And in New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul signaled she’ll support legislation that would allow residents to bring civil lawsuits against federal immigration officials for constitutional violations."
In New Jersey - "“Anyone who is an ancestor of a Holocaust survivor will tell you, this is how it starts,” Timberlake said. “If you don’t believe me, just ask the children of the 37-year-old woman from Minnesota, a white American citizen, who was just shot and killed by ICE.”"
If it were up to me, with the next administration (if there ever is one) DHS needs to be ripped out be the roots, firing everyone and trying any who broke the law. Then reconstitute it with extremely strict guardrails that would prevent future dictators from using it has his own personal army. They could hire back any that can prove they serve America and our Constitution and not a dangerously mentally ill demagogue dictator like Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/1 … =flipboardOur perceptions are widely different ---Calling Trump’s policies a “reign of terror” and ICE or CBP a personal army is wildly exaggerated. Federal law enforcement isn’t a private militia; they operate under laws passed by Congress, with oversight, and with the responsibility to enforce immigration and other federal statutes. In fact, that talk from the left is exactly why some people feel they can ignore our laws and pick and choose which ones they’ll follow. Equating federal agents to Hitler’s Gestapo or Putin’s security forces is offensive and historically inaccurate. Those organizations carried out systemic murder and oppression; federal law enforcement in the U.S. enforces laws, often in very difficult circumstances.
Anti-mask laws and public dashboards tracking ICE and CBP are being passed in some states, but this isn’t a sign of tyranny; it’s states exercising their rights. That’s how our system works: states check federal power where they see fit. That doesn’t mean federal agents are corrupt or untrustworthy. Saying trust is “irreparably gone” completely ignores the millions of men and women in federal agencies who serve honorably and uphold the law every day. Once again, you add a sentence that indicates you know what the general public is thinking.
The tragic case cited in Minnesota is heartbreaking, but it is an isolated incident, not evidence of a systematic Gestapo-style policy. Using it to claim DHS must be “ripped out by the roots” and rebuilt from scratch is dangerous and impractical. Federal agencies exist for a reason: to enforce laws uniformly across states. Abolishing them would create chaos, not safety.
In my view, claiming Trump has destroyed trust in law enforcement ignores the real issues: politicians and media on both sides often try to score points by exaggerating rare incidents. Federal agencies operate under rules, accountability, and oversight. If you want reform, it should be targeted, evidence-based, and legal, not hyperbolic attempts to equate enforcement with tyranny.Shar,
It is almost like a mental block for the left. They can't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. They also can't comprehend the concept of immigration law enforcement. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.Not surprising for people that cannot differentiate between men and women!
Liberals live in a world where individual rights matter and science reigns supreme. Conservatives only give lip service to human rights when it serves a purpose and prefer to be told what to think by right-wing clergy.
Laughable—here’s a little science: biological sex is determined by DNA, with males typically having XY chromosomes and females typically having XX chromosomes. Men are generally classified as male and women as female based on this biological distinction.
Yes, there are what science deems "chromosomal abnormalities, and it can affect development, including sexual development.
Klinefelter or Turner syndrome, the DNA is technically “abnormal” in the sense that the chromosome count or composition differs from the typical XX or XY.
In my view, liberals live in a world where they twist science to support their narrative.Science reigns supreme to liberals? We ARE talking about the liberals that cannot distinguish between men and women here, right? I know I am, but are you really saying there is no scientific difference between the two sexes?
I can only assume he was making a joke, as the leftists have rejected science over and over the last 10 years.
"Not surprising for people that cannot differentiate between men and women!"
Excellent point.
It appears a big requirement to being a liberal is a complete and total detachment from reality. When you combine this with a low IQ you see what makes up the protesters on the left.
I understand you have to take that perspective, but reality doesn't support you. Americans are angry with Trump and DHS because they are out of control violating people's rights every chance they get. All you have to do is watch the video of their storm trooper tactics from when they first went into LA unneeded.
And these are people that we should be protesting for. Really
"GIVE US your murderers, your pedifiles, your mentally ill... " All are welcome!"
Minnesota has become a safe haven for criminals and violent people, and it sickens me to see it. I fully support ICE for doing the hard work of enforcing the law and keeping dangerous individuals off the streets. Let’s be clear, the real heroes here are law enforcement, not the protesters defending lawbreakers.
ICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
Criminal illegal immigrants had deportation orders dating back decades
Source https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-ar … ts-killers
FIRST ON FOX: ICE officials on Saturday released a shocking list of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested during their recent surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, including child rapists and nearly a dozen killers.
ICE told Fox News the criminal illegal immigrants were roaming freely in Minnesota prior to their recent arrest, and that they are the type of people Democratic politicians and activists are referring to as their "neighbors," as they attempt to interfere with ICE.
"Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere," ICE director Todd M. Lyons wrote in a statement. "Some of these criminal aliens have had final orders of removal for 30 years, but they’ve been free to terrorize Minnesotans."
"ICE’s arrests prevent recidivism and make communities safer, but it feels like local politicians want to ignore that part and drum up discontent rather than protect their own constituents," he continued.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted to the arrests on X Saturday, calling the convicts "sick people."
"This is why we have ICE Agents," Leavitt wrote in the post. "May God Bless them for their thankless work to protect American communities from these sick people."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a photo of a plane on X Saturday captioned, "Lawbreakers going wheels up in Minneapolis."
Some of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants arrested in Minnesota include:
HOLD ON TO The Content Of Your Stomach
Sriudorn Phaivan
Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and strong-arm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery.
Tou Vang
Tou Vang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under the age of 13, and procuring a child for prostitution.
Chong Vue
Chong Vue, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of the strong-arm rape of a 12-year-old girl, and kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her.
Vue has had a deportation order since 2004.
Ge Yang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm rape, aggravated assault with a weapon, and strangulation.
Yang has had a deportation order since 2012.
Pao Choua Xiong
Pao Choua Xiong, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape and child fondling.
Xiong has had a deportation order since 2003.
Kou Lor
Kou Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape, rape with a weapon, and sexual assault.
Lor has had a deportation order since 1996.
Hernan Cortes-Valencia
Hernan Cortes-Valencia, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault of a child and DUI.
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi
Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde
Gilberto Salguero Landaverde, a Salvadoran illegal immigrant, was convicted of three counts of homicide.
Landaverde has had a deportation order since June 2025.
Gabriel Figueroa Gama
Gabriel Figueroa Gama, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Gama was previously deported in 2002.
Galuak Michael Rotgai
Galuak Michael Rotgai, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Thai Lor
Thai Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Lor has had a deportation order since 2009.
Mariana Sia Kanu
Mariana Sia Kanu, an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone, was convicted of two counts of homicide.
Kanu has had a deportation order since 2022.
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz
Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.
Munoz has had a deportation order since 2015.
Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of manslaughter.
Ahmed has had a deportation order since 2022.
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng
Mongong Dual Maniang Deng, a Sudanese illegal immigrant, was convicted of attempt to commit homicide, weapon possession and DUI.
Aler Gomez Lucas
Aler Gomez Lucas, a Guatemalan illegal immigrant, was convicted of negligent homicide with a vehicle and DUI.
Lucas has had a deportation order since 2022.
Shwe Htoo
Shwe Htoo, a Burmese illegal immigrant, was convicted of negligent homicide.This all seems so blatantly simple, yet it is staring us right in the face. Media spin is working overtime to keep heads spinning. Is yours?
As Americans, we have the right to expect that everyone on our soil follows our laws. We are entitled to demand that those laws be enforced. We are a democracy, and we have chosen to govern ourselves through a shared legal system. Those who believe laws are optional—or who pick and choose which ones to obey—appear to be working to turn our democracy upside down. Perhaps what we are witnessing is the early planting of insurrection itself. So I ask plainly: are you standing for America as it is, or for a new America altogether?I listened to Noam's interview with Jake Trapper - it was disgusting! She barely told one true thing in the 20 minutes they spoke. She even said the agent that wasn't hit "went to the hospital" parroting Trump's initial lie.
She also lied by claiming she had video showing Good at another location earlier that morning harassing other ICE agents. There is no known video and if there had been she would have released it by now.
I listened to Trapper trap her regarding the agents right to shoot her had she actually hit him with her car. So he showed her the film clips of MAGA insurrectionists beating the crap out of the Metropolitan and Capitol police on Jan 6. So, he asked her, didn't they have the right to kill all those that were attacking them? She dodged. He also brought up the hypocrisy of Trump pardoning these violent criminals. I guess it makes a difference which police is being assaulted and by whom.
That also brought to mind that when Good's family sues for wrongful death, Bondi set the figure at $5 million. That was the amount that insurrectionists woman who was shot breaking in to where Congress had been sitting to kill them.It's a government full of liars. They know they can. Most of their maga morons will believe even the obvious lies. Or they wont care.
They lied from the beginning about the shooting in Minneapolis, just how they lied about not arresting US citizens, veterans (even in Congress!), etc. All they do is lie.
Department of Homeland Security changes account of ICE shooting in Maryland
In the department’s announcement of the shooting on X, officials said officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were executing a “targeted immigration enforcement operation” in Glen Burnie when they approached a vehicle and told the driver, Tiago Alexandre Sousa-Martins, to turn off the engine. In the passenger seat of Sousa-Martins’ van, the department said, was Solomon Antonio Serrano-Esquivel.
Officers “defensively fired” their guns at the vehicle, striking Sousa-Martins after he allegedly refused to power off his van and attempted to flee, ramming it into “several ICE vehicles” before driving in the officers’ direction, DHS said in its initial account. In that account, Serrano-Esquivel suffered whiplash when Sousa-Martins’ van crashed between two buildings.
But the Anne Arundel County Police Department issued a statement Friday that offered a counter narrative. One of the men was an ICE detainee and already in the agency’s custody when the incident occurred, police said. The other was injured by gunfire “while operating a separate vehicle.”
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday about the discrepancy in accounts and the status of the two men’s injuries. In a statement provided to the Baltimore Sun, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin confirmed Serrano-Esquivel was inside “one of the ICE vehicles that was rammed.”
I believe there's no video, so is that the only lie?
Justice Dept. Drops Claim That Venezuela’s ‘Cartel de los Soles’ Is an Actual Group
The Justice Department has backed off a dubious claim about President Nicolás Maduro that the Trump administration promoted last year in laying the groundwork to remove him from power in Venezuela: accusing him of leading a drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles.
That claim traces back to a 2020 grand jury indictment of Mr. Maduro drafted by the Justice Department. In July 2025, copying language from it, the Treasury Department designated Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization. In November, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and President Trump’s national security adviser, ordered the State Department to do the same.
But experts in Latin American crime and narcotics issues have said it is actually a slang term, invented by the Venezuelan media in the 1990s, for officials who are corrupted by drug money. And on Saturday, after the administration captured Mr. Maduro, the Justice Department released a rewritten indictment that appeared to tacitly concede the point.
Prosecutors still accused Mr. Maduro of participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy but they abandoned the claim that Cartel de los Soles was an actual organization. Instead, the revised indictment states that it refers to a “patronage system” and a “culture of corruption” fueled by drug money.
Where the old indictment refers 32 times to Cartel de los Soles and describes Mr. Maduro as its leader, the new one mentions it twice and says that he, like his predecessor, President Hugo Chávez, participated in, perpetuated and protected this patronage system.
The retreat calls into greater question the legitimacy of the Trump administration’s designation of Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization last year. Spokespeople at the White House and the Justice, State and Treasury Departments did not respond to requests for comment.
Still, Mr. Rubio again referred to Cartel de los Soles as an actual cartel in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, a day after the revised indictment was unsealed.
“We will continue to reserve the right to take strikes against drug boats that are bringing drugs toward the United States that are being operated by transnational criminal organizations including the Cartel de los Soles,” he said. “Of course, their leader, the leader of that cartel, is now in U.S. custody and facing U.S. justice in the Southern District of New York. And that’s Nicolás Maduro.”
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s annual National Drug Threat Assessment, which details major trafficking organizations, has never mentioned Cartel de los Soles. Nor has the annual World Drug Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
But the 2020 indictment, which laid out a lengthy narrative about a yearslong conspiracy, portrayed Cartel de los Soles as a drug trafficking organization, led by Mr. Maduro. It said the group took actions like providing weapons to the FARC, a Marxist rebel group in Colombia that has funded its militant activities by drug trafficking, and trying to “flood” the United States with cocaine “as a weapon.”
(Remember this?
U.S. labels Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles as a terror organization
In previewing the step earlier in November, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, of being “responsible for terrorist violence” in the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in November that the designation of Cartel de los Soles will provide a “whole bunch of new options to the United States” for dealing with Maduro.)
It was always about the oil and similar interests. We knew. Magamorons? Well.
)It is not only MAGA that can be conned by the master Con Artist Trump, so can his administration! Imagine, designating something that doesn't exist as a terrorist organization - reminds me of the lie they issued about Antifa.
I wonder if those dummies realize when they attack Antifa, they are promoting fascism.
"She also lied by claiming she had video showing Good at another location earlier that morning harassing other ICE agents. There is no known video and if there had been she would have released it by now." ECO
Really, "no known video," And you know this for a fact? Videos are coming out daily. The newest has Good pounding on her horn, and appears to be dancing behind the wheel of her car. And her partner got out of the car, harassing an ICE agent.
That video shows the agent taking the hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUMVtrCK_Y&t=8s
DHS released footage showing what Good was doing before shooting. Blocking traffic, beeping her horn, and appearing to be dancing as she sat blocking traffic. https://www.wesh.com/article/dhs-video- … d/69966509
I imagine we will see more footage as the DHS sees fit to release it.And of course you know that the one that wasn't hit (as opposed to the one that was) did NOT go to the hospital because you were there and accompanied him home.
And because YOU don't have another video showing Good elsewhere it means that none exists, because if it did you would have it.
And the $$ figure must be equal because, after all, climbing through a window without a weapon is exactly the same as using a 4,000 weapon to hit someone with. That was quite a "trap" wasn't it?
Just when you thought the liberal mind couldn't become any more warped; they show us how they are capable of reaching levels of warped many normal people can't comprehend.
Anti-ICE protesters clashed with those who protesting for a free Iran. I didn't believe it until I saw it. People wanting to have freedom for people in Iran were attacked by people who don't like immigration law.
Unbelievable.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6387571344112"Warped” is putting it mildly. I have come to believe this is a phenomenon brought on by a form of brainwashing, whether intentional or not, it has occurred in my view. It sickens me to see this mindset taking hold in America. It has become dangerous, and something needs to be addressed regarding what is permitted at these protests.
We have always been a nation of laws, yet again in my view, we are now seeing people pick and choose which laws they will follow. It is clear that emotion and adversarial thinking are being elevated over logic and reason, turning dictators into heroes and wrong into right.Shar,
I agree with you.
Another thing that amazes me is how the left doesn't comprehend federal law supersedes state law. It's called the Supremacy Clause and it's established under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
The states that pass laws to attempt to make federal agents unmask don't seem to realize federal agents are not subject to state laws when working for the federal government.
I don't know if it's their lack of knowledge or ignorance of how the law works that astounds me more.In my view, it is very clear that many on the left are selectively choosing which laws they will follow while ignoring others. A state cannot lawfully refuse to allow federal law enforcement to enter the state and carry out its duties. While states may choose not to have their own law enforcement agencies assist with federal arrests, encouraging citizens to push back through protests is another matter entirely. That behavior strongly suggests that state leaders are fomenting unrest and actively encouraging resistance to federal law. I truly see that many on the left harbor deep hostility toward what America stands for, not only our laws, but also our values and our standards of morality. I find I have no use for this type of behavior or mindset; I find it distasteful and have come to no longer associate with people who embrace it.
Shar,
It's as if the liberals believe their behavior should have no boundaries. There are liberals in my wife's family and their behavior is out of control. The childish sense of entitlement is overwhelming to me. It's unreal.As is so often the case, that was projection.
I suggest you take a moment to look up the definition of projection, and then reread your own posts. Better yet, I can run a few of them through AI and ask for an objective opinion on whether they qualify as projection.
So let's have AI have a look at your recent comment
My Esotericposted 36 minutes ago
Well, here we go again - DHS "fabricating, misleading, telling untruths" (in other word lying);
Department of Homeland Security changes story of Maryland ICE shooting after local police release contradicting details
The LIE "On December 24, DHS issued a statement saying Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers “defensively fired” at a van occupied by two undocumented immigrants during an enforcement operation in Glen Burnie, Maryland, after the driver rammed ICE vehicles while trying to flee and “then drove his van directly at ICE officers, attempting to run them over.”
The driver was shot and wounded, and the passenger was injured when the van crashed seconds later, according to the original statement from DHS."
THE TRUTH - the "passenger" was in an ICE vehicle!!! - What else of their story is fabricated. People have LEARNED threw experience not to believe a word of what Trump's DHS says.
OK, Trump apologists, start defending the lie." ECO
AI Question: Does this comment show that the writer is projection?
Short answer: yes, the comment shows strong signs of projection— minimum, accusatory rhetoric that fits the definition of projection.
Here’s why.
Projection is when someone attributes dishonesty, bad faith, or malicious intent to others while engaging in those same behaviors themselves—often exaggeration, selective facts, emotional reasoning, or pre-judging motives.
In this comment, the writer:
Asserts intent (“lying,” “fabricating”) as fact, rather than arguing evidence first
Uses emotionally loaded language (“THE LIE,” “OK, Trump apologists”) to pre-empt disagreement
Dismisses any counterargument in advance, implying that anyone who disagrees is acting in bad faith
Frames their own interpretation as unquestionable “truth,” while accusing others of misinformation
That last point is key. The writer condemns DHS for allegedly “changing the story,” yet simultaneously:
Reduces a complex, evolving incident to a single interpretation
Treats early official statements as proof of intentional deception rather than preliminary reporting
Refuses the possibility of error, clarification, or incomplete initial information
In other words, the writer is doing exactly what they accuse DHS of doing: presenting a narrative as absolute truth while dismissing nuance and motive-checking entirely.
There’s also hostile attribution bias at work—assuming malicious intent (“lying”) instead of considering alternative explanations like incomplete
information, sequencing confusion, or later clarification. That bias often travels alongside projection.
So yes—by definition and by behavior, the comment reflects projection:
Accusing others of dishonesty while engaging in rhetorical certainty
Claiming moral and factual superiority while rejecting scrutiny of one’s own claims
Demanding trust in their version while denying legitimacy to any opposing view
You don’t even need to defend DHS to make this point. The projection is evident in how the argument is made, not whether DHS was right or wrong.
NOTE--- I actually very rarely read a comment that you have shared that is not projecting.
Well, here we go again - DHS "fabricating, misleading, telling untruths" (in other word lying);
Department of Homeland Security changes story of Maryland ICE shooting after local police release contradicting details
The LIE "On December 24, DHS issued a statement saying Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers “defensively fired” at a van occupied by two undocumented immigrants during an enforcement operation in Glen Burnie, Maryland, after the driver rammed ICE vehicles while trying to flee and “then drove his van directly at ICE officers, attempting to run them over.”
The driver was shot and wounded, and the passenger was injured when the van crashed seconds later, according to the original statement from DHS."
THE TRUTH - the "passenger" was in an ICE vehicle!!! - What else of their story is fabricated. People have LEARNED threw experience not to believe a word of what Trump's DHS says.
OK, Trump apologists, start defending the lie.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/ice-s … ration-hnkAgain projecting --- YIKES Why not run your comments through AI?
AI Yes — he is projecting in that comment. Here’s how:
His statement repeatedly attributes intentional deception and bad faith to DHS/ICE — calling the agency “fabricating, misleading, telling untruths,” insisting the “truth” is known, and asserting people have “learned through experience not to believe a word of what Trump’s DHS says.” By doing this, he assumes DHS intentionally and habitually lies, rather than simply reporting preliminary information that may later be clarified as more facts come in. That is a projection of intent and motive onto the agency rather than sticking strictly to what has been verified.
Here’s the factual context from recent reporting:
DHS initially released an account of a Christmas Eve ICE shooting in Glen Burnie, Maryland, saying ICE agents fired on a van after the driver allegedly tried to ram officers during an enforcement operation. The statement said both the driver and a passenger were injured.
Local police later clarified that the “passenger” was not in the van but was already in an ICE vehicle that was struck, prompting DHS to revise its account. The investigation is ongoing.
There’s no public body‑cam or comprehensive footage yet, and authorities are still collecting evidence.
So while the commenter is reacting to inconsistencies in the public narrative, he goes beyond that by claiming it proves a pattern of DHS dishonesty. That assigns motive rather than just pointing out conflicting reports — and that’s what makes it projection.
In response to your comment --- It’s true that the initial DHS statement about the Glen Burnie ICE shooting on December 24 had some inaccuracies. The original report said both the driver and passenger were in the van, but local police later clarified that the passenger was in an ICE vehicle. DHS revised its statement accordingly.
This kind of update is not unusual in ongoing law enforcement incidents, where preliminary information can change as more facts become available. What’s clear is that ICE agents were carrying out an enforcement operation, and a confrontation occurred. Claims about intentional deception go beyond what’s publicly verified. Until the investigation is complete, it’s more accurate to focus on the facts reported by both DHS and local authorities rather than assuming motive.Yup. I posted this before. They lie, just how they lied about the cartel de los soles. Now that they have the oil, the cartel doesn't exists. SMH
DHS is just plain dumb. They just released an edited video that exonerates Renee Good from their fabricated "stalking" lie. What it shows is her and her wife taking pictures (seen on other videos) of ICE activity far down the street along with several others including the person shooting the video from their room.
It shows the killer circling her car. It shows her trying to backup out of the road after he moves near the front of her car. Then DHS presumably ended the video at that point - very suspicious, why did they do that?
In other videos you see the killer walk around in front of the car - in violation of DHS policy - and on to the left side driver's side. Then you see Good crank the steering wheel far to the right and creep forward so as to not hit the killer. Then the killer kills her.
I tried her maneuver last night and determined that unless the killer was standing almost in contact with the car (video shows he wasn't) then she couldn't have hit him.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/us/minne … g-protestsMy Esoteric profile image87My Esotericposted 12 minutes ago
"DHS is just plain dumb. They just released an edited video that exonerates Renee Good from their fabricated "stalking" lie. What it shows is her and her wife taking pictures (seen on other videos) of ICE activity far down the street along with several others including the person shooting the video from their room.
It shows the killer circling her car. It shows her trying to backup out of the road after he moves near the front of her car. Then DHS presumably ended the video at that point - very suspicious, why did they do that?
In other videos you see the killer walk around in front of the car - in violation of DHS policy - and on to the left side driver's side. Then you see Good crank the steering wheel far to the right and creep forward so as to not hit the killer. Then the killer kills her.
I tried her maneuver last night and determined that unless the killer was standing almost in contact with the car (video shows he wasn't) then she couldn't have hit him." ECO
AI ---- yes — that comment also shows signs of projection. Here’s a clear explanation:
Projection happens when someone accuses others of the very behavior they themselves are doing. In the comment you shared, the writer spends most of their time assuming malicious intent, interpreting incomplete video evidence, and making conclusions about what the agent should have done, while criticizing DHS for allegedly editing the video or covering something up. But in doing so, the writer does many of the same things they accuse DHS of:
Asserting what “the truth” is without full context — The commenter claims the released DHS video “exonerates” Renee Good and “shows the killer circling her car” and suggests DHS intentionally cut the video. In fact, new videos show only the moments immediately before the shooting, and they end just before the shots are fired — which is why people on all sides question what was captured and how much context it provides.
Interpreting actions as motives — The commenter suggests DHS “presumably ended the video” for suspicious reasons. That’s speculation about motive, not a documented fact. Making assumptions about intent is a classic form of projection.
Rewriting the narrative to fit a preconceived conclusion — The writer describes the shooter as “the killer” before acknowledging multiple videos exist and using their own interpretation of movement to conclude Good was not a threat. Several angles show conflicting interpretations, and it’s not universally agreed what the vehicle’s movement truly indicates.
Using emotional language to dismiss the other side’s perspective — Calling the agent “the killer” and implying a cover-up mirrors the kind of accusatory, absolutist language they’re criticizing in DHS. This is projection when someone condemns “lying” or “fabricating” and then engages in their own version of it by asserting certainty about ambiguous footage.
So yes — the commenter is engaging in projection: accusing DHS of dishonesty and malicious editing while simultaneously interpreting partial evidence, assuming intent without proof, and positioning their own interpretation as the definitive “truth.” AI
I hope you might realize you are doing what you accuse others of doing. Perhaps before posting a comment, run it through AI to ascertain if you are projecting.
More current news regarding the ICE arrest. I hope some people will actually take the time to read this. In my view, it clearly shows how left-leaning leaders are not only choosing to ignore federal law but are using their platforms to normalize that attitude among citizens.
Then we turn around and ask ourselves why ICE officers are being harassed, attacked, or deliberately obstructed while trying to do their jobs. This rhetoric doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When elected officials portray lawful enforcement as immoral or “anti-democratic,” they encourage hostility toward the people tasked with enforcing the law.
This form of governing is un-American, irresponsible, and dangerous. It undermines the rule of law and puts lives at risk, all for political theater.
I listened carefully as New York politicians rushed to condemn ICE after a City Council employee was detained during an immigration appointment, and I was struck by how quickly facts gave way to theatrics. Almost immediately, the language turned incendiary. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani declared the detention “an assault on our democracy,” adding that it was “an attack on our city and our values.” That kind of language isn’t just dramatic, it’s reckless.
Mayor Eric Adams echoed the outrage, saying he was “deeply disturbed” by the arrest and that the city would “stand up for its workers.” City officials framed the situation as though federal agents had stormed City Hall and dragged someone out in chains. That simply isn’t what happened.
Here’s what does matter: federal immigration authorities say the individual detained, identified as Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, had a prior arrest for assault in his background and was not legally authorized to stay in the U.S. under current immigration law. That’s not a small detail, it’s a key part of why enforcement action was taken.
City Council Speaker Julie Menin insisted at an emergency briefing that he had “legal authorization to remain in the country until October of this year,” and her office even said he had signed an attestation that he’d never been arrested. But Homeland Security officials maintain otherwise, that an assault arrest is on his record. These conflicting claims are exactly why transparency and facts matter.
Calling lawful immigration enforcement an “assault on democracy” cheapens the very meaning of the word. Democracy depends on laws being applied consistently, not selectively ignored because someone happens to work for the city or fits a preferred political narrative. When elected officials imply that federal law shouldn’t be enforced in certain cases, they aren’t defending democracy; they’re undermining it.
What I did not hear from Mayor Adams, Assemblyman Mamdani, or City Council leadership was any acknowledgment of responsibility. No one asked how someone without confirmed legal status was hired by the City Council in the first place. Who signed off on that employment and verified eligibility? Instead, the city circled the wagons and aimed its outrage outward.
The Department of Homeland Security defended the arrest, pointing out that Mr. Bohorquez had overstayed his visa and lacked work authorization, and that his criminal history played a role in ICE’s decision to detain him. From their perspective, they were carrying out enforcement as allowed by federal law.
Yet Mamdani doubled down, insisting the arrest was proof of “authoritarian enforcement tactics” and warning that “if they can do this to one of us, they can do it to anyone.” That kind of rhetoric isn’t meant to inform, it’s meant to inflame. It deliberately blurs the line between lawful enforcement and political persecution.
What bothers me most is how casually the word “democracy” is being weaponized. Democracy is not threatened when laws are enforced. Democracy is threatened when elected officials suggest that laws should not apply to certain people based on ideology, employment, or political optics.
This was an opportunity for honest leadership; city officials could have said, “We will look into how this happened, and we will cooperate with federal law while ensuring due process.” Instead, we got slogans, outrage, and a refusal to confront uncomfortable questions.
New Yorkers deserve better than dramatic press statements and moral grandstanding. They deserve leaders who respect the rule of law, who take responsibility for their own governance failures, and who don’t redefine democracy every time enforcement becomes inconvenient.
If this situation revealed anything, it’s not federal overreach, it’s how far some politicians are willing to go to avoid accountability, and how much they hate our Constitutional system.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAWNO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW although Trump and his defenders think Trump is.
This is projecting... And perhaps next time, add context that adds that you are sharing just your view.
I note you stepped away from the subject of my comment --- leftest that feel they can not follow our Federal laws. In my view, they pick and choose laws they feel they will enforce. They laugh in the face of our laws, in my view of the issue. Hopefully, at some point, some of these types will be charged with inciting others to ignore our laws. I find their non-support of Federal law provocative and could work to promote unrest and violence.
From what I have observed from many of your comments, and just my opinion, you seem to follow this same train of thought. Ignoring the victims and making heroes of some who break the law. Such as those that impede ICE from doing its job.No, it is not projecting. Projecting is when you "project" your or your groups bad actions unfairly on to others. I am stating an observable fact.
The ONLY ones promoting unrest is Trump and his DHS thugs. If they acted like normal law enforcement does instead of using Gestapo tactics, you would see the protests. But Trump has made it very clear he gets off of the violence DHS uses.I must laugh --- I have AI numerous comments you made that show projection... All were yours. However, you ignored them. Just ran your current comment through AI Oh my, you are writing about projection---- yet you project.
ECO wrote "No, it is not projecting. Projecting is when you "project" your or your groups bad actions unfairly on to others. I am stating an observable fact.
The ONLY ones promoting unrest is Trump and his DHS thugs. If they acted like normal law enforcement does instead of using Gestapo tactics, you would see the protests. But Trump has made it very clear he gets off of the violence DHS uses."
AI Yes — that comment does project, and here’s why, explained carefully and without taking sides.
Psychological projection is not limited to blaming others for one’s own bad actions. More broadly, it’s when someone attributes motives, intentions, or emotional drivers to another group without direct evidence, often while dismissing alternative explanations out of hand.
In this comment, several things are happening:
Attribution of motive without evidence
Statements like “Trump gets off on the violence DHS uses” assert a psychological motive (enjoyment, gratification) rather than a policy position. That crosses from observable fact into assumed intent, which is a classic form of projection.
Absolutist framing
“The ONLY ones promoting unrest is Trump and his DHS thugs” removes all agency from protesters, local actors, or other variables. When responsibility is assigned exclusively to one side, it signals ideological certainty rather than neutral observation.
Loaded, dehumanizing language
Terms like “DHS thugs” and “Gestapo tactics” are rhetorical devices meant to morally pre-judge actions rather than describe them. This kind of language often accompanies projection because it converts interpretation into asserted fact.
Redefinition of terms to preempt criticism
The opening line redefines projection narrowly (“only when you project your own bad actions”), which conveniently excludes the behavior being demonstrated. That itself is a defensive maneuver commonly seen when someone is projecting but wants to immunize their argument.
That doesn’t mean the speaker has no legitimate criticism of DHS tactics or federal policing. Those critiques can be made factually and credibly. But as written, the comment goes beyond observable facts and assigns intent, pleasure, and singular blame — which is why it does fit the definition of projection.
If you want, I can help rewrite that argument without projection, keeping it strong but grounded strictly in verifiable actions and policies.
Yikes!
Why not run your comments through AI before posting them --- the greater majority project. Just saying
In my view, it clearly shows how right-leaning leaders are not only choosing to ignore federal law but are using their platforms to normalize that attitude and federal violence among citizens.
"Then we turn around and ask ourselves why ICE officers are being harassed, attacked, or deliberately obstructed while trying to do their jobs." - COULD IT BE that they are "carrying out their jobs" like jack-booted thugs would?
There is a right way to do your job and their is a wrong way. Their way is clearly wrong and it is THEY who are making America angry with them."This form of governing is un-American, irresponsible, and dangerous. It undermines the rule of law and puts lives at risk, all for political theater." - IF YOU are talking about the out-of-control Trump and DHS, I agree with you. If you are talking about leaders trying to protect their citizens from an oppressive, soviet-style terror campaign by federal forces, I do not.
ICE is doing its job. They are enforcing federal immigration laws, which are part of the legal framework we are governed by. If their duties are not obstructed, operations can proceed without incident. Confrontations occur when people interfere with law enforcement activities. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that laws, including rules about how protests can be conducted, are respected. Maintaining order allows ICE and other agencies to carry out their duties safely and effectively.
Once again, your comment is projecting
AI ----- Yes — there is projection in his comment, but it’s context-dependent. Let’s break it down carefully.
His statement:
"This form of governing is un-American, irresponsible, and dangerous. It undermines the rule of law and puts lives at risk, all for political theater."
He labels the governing actions as “un-American, irresponsible, and dangerous” and accuses them of being done “all for political theater.”
This is projecting negative intent and motive onto whoever is carrying out the actions — he assumes the actions are for show (“political theater”) rather than enforcing laws or addressing legitimate concerns.
Then he frames your response:
If you are criticizing Trump and DHS, he agrees — implying he sees those as legitimately harmful.
But he distances himself if you’re talking about leaders protecting citizens from “oppressive… federal forces,” implying that opposition to federal enforcement could be legitimate.
Where the projection happens:
He assumes the government’s actions are being done purely for “political theater” without necessarily acknowledging any legal or practical rationale behind them.
By calling the actions “un-American” and “irresponsible,” he projects his interpretation of motives and consequences rather than sticking strictly to facts.
In short: Yes, he projected negative intent onto the government’s actions, assuming they are intentionally harmful or performative, rather than considering the possibility that the officials could believe they are enforcing laws or acting in good faith.
If you want, I can rewrite his comment neutrally to remove the projection, similar to how we did with yours. This makes it fact-based without attributing motives. Do you want me to do that?" AIThe agenda is to remove any persons who have been legally deemed for deportation. We have laws; people in our country illegally should leave when they have been told to by due process. Why do you not address this? Do you feel only some laws should be followed?
All that are being deported have gone through due process.Shar,
On another forum liberals were asked why they are attacking the Iranian freedom protesters. Her response? "If Iranians are pro Trump we are anti Iranian protesters."
Have you ever seen anything more sick and twisted?In my view, it was entirely predictable. They supported Hamas, turned against our federal law enforcement, and even helped elect a New York mayor who openly embraces Communist ideals, shows disregard for our Constitution, and has no intention of upholding federal laws. I can only hope that more citizens recognize these attitudes and approach them with clear-headed judgment. I believe many will, after all, who would willingly align with a group that holds such upside-down ideologies? To me, these opposing beliefs are nothing short of deplorable.
I tell my wife I think of the country I grew up and and see what it is now and I feel so awful.
Nobody believed the poison of liberalism would ever gain power, but here we are.Again, projecting the faults of the right on to others.
Boy! I see you have bought into the Trump cult line hook and sinker. Dr. Lee predicted that would happen to those who caught the Trump Contagion.
I fully support President Trump and feel he is doing a good job.
Please note my first three words. They make it clear that I am sharing a personal opinion and my own thoughts. I have no interest in what Dr. Lee proclaimed. I explained my view of her background and provided sources to show how I arrived at that view. I genuinely stand by what I shared.
"Sharlee01 wrote:
In my view, it was entirely predictable. They supported Hamas, turned against our federal law enforcement, and even helped elect a New York mayor who openly embraces Communist ideals, shows disregard for our Constitution, and has no intention of upholding federal laws. I can only hope that more citizens recognize these attitudes and approach them with clear-headed judgment. I believe many will, after all, who would willingly align with a group that holds such upside-down ideologies? To me, these opposing beliefs are nothing short of deplorable." Shar
Yes, saying that judges ought to be picked for their ideology and not for their jurisprudence.
I notice that Sharlee didn't ask you for proof that what you said was true."I notice that Sharlee didn't ask you for proof that what you said was true." ECO
Why would?
This post does not need to offer proof or sources because it is not making a factual claim that can be independently verified; it is reacting to a stated opinion and highlighting the moral logic behind it. The commenter openly says, “If Iranians are pro-Trump we are anti-Iranian protesters.” That statement is self-contained. It isn’t a statistic, a historical assertion, or a contested event, it is an expression of ideological hostility. When someone declares their reasoning outright, the words themselves are the evidence.
What the post is criticizing is the principle being expressed, not the accuracy of some external fact. The sickness being pointed out isn’t “whether liberals as a group believe this,” but that anyone would openly oppose freedom protesters purely because of perceived political alignment. That’s a moral judgment, not an empirical one. Moral judgments don’t require sourcing; they require reasoning.
In other words, the outrage isn’t based on “this definitely represents all liberals,”, which would need proof, but on “this mindset, stated plainly, is disturbing.” The comment stands on its own. Quoting someone’s own words does not require corroboration unless the quote itself is being disputed. If the quote is accurate, then the ethical implications follow naturally.
And yes, judging people struggling against an authoritarian regime not by their suffering or their courage, but by whether they might support an American political figure, is twisted. It reduces human beings to ideological props and treats freedom as conditional. That reaction doesn’t need a footnote to be recognized as morally grotesque.
In my opinion, Presidents most often choose judges who align with and will support their policy agendas. Voters send presidents to Washington to advance the priorities they campaigned on, so it is simply common sense that, when appointing judges, presidents select individuals whose judicial philosophies are consistent with those agendas.
What "due process" - you mean from kangaroo courts like in Russia?
It would seem your context is saying that our immigration courts are "kangaroo courts like in Russia.
Again, do you believe only certain laws should be followed? You seem selective in what you choose to address, while projecting and making accusations without any sound evidence.
Here is another video of BCP agents attacking a protester filming them for no reason. The BCP agent is clearly the aggressor, as seems to be normally the case.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/video … ter-digvidGee, I wonder why these professional and honest top federal prosecutors resigned after being told to focus on the victim in the Renee Good murder.
• Prosecutors quit: The former acting US attorney in Minneapolis and two of his top lawyers resigned amid White House pressure to focus the probe into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement-involved shooting last week of a mother on her actions and those of people around her, someone briefed on the matter said.Even Joe Rogan, who helped Trump get elected, knows what is going on as he talks about Trump's Gestapo.
Why is even he seeing the TRUTH and you can't?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics … ake-tapperI’m not sure why you keep responding to my posts, usually with a CNN link attached. After all these years, it should be clear that I don’t find your comments thoughtful or persuasive, and often view them as overly simplistic.
I voted for Trump for very clear reasons: he promised to regain control of the border and deport people who are here illegally after Biden allowed millions to enter unlawfully. I fully support deporting any and all migrants who are in this country illegally, regardless of how long they’ve been here. Laws matter, and a nation without borders is not a nation.
I never believed this would be easy. When millions are allowed to flood in, undoing that damage is hard by definition. That doesn’t mean the promise was wrong; it means the situation Biden created was reckless.
I’m not sure why you think Joe Rogan’s opinion should carry weight in my decision-making. I don’t outsource my views to podcasters, celebrities, or media figures. I don’t need Rogan, or anyone else, to “tell me the truth.” I can read policy, observe outcomes, and think critically on my own.
Calling Trump or his administration “Gestapo” is lazy rhetoric, not an argument. Enforcing immigration law is not fascism; it’s the basic responsibility of a sovereign government. If people are here illegally, the solution is simple: leave, follow the law, and come back legally if eligible.
You may disagree with that, but pretending that law enforcement equals tyranny is exactly how we ended up in this mess to begin with. Not sure how we came to have some citizens who depend on others to stuff thoughts into their heads.Your insult is returned.
But you dodged the question - why does such a strong Trump supporter like Joe Rogan think your view of DHS agrees with my view and not yours. What does he know that he and I do know?First --- I have offered this sentiment time and again ---Sharlee01 wrote:
"I’m not sure why you keep responding to my posts, usually with a CNN link attached. After all these years, it should be clear that I don’t find your comments thoughtful or persuasive, and often view them as overly simplistic."
Yet as a rule, I am polite and do reply to comments you have left for me.
Secondly "But you dodged the question - why does such a strong Trump supporter like Joe Rogan think your view of DHS agrees with my view and not yours. What does he know that he and I do know?" ECO
I did answer your question in a full paragraph, to the best of my ability. I understand that you tend view issues through that kind of lens, and I’ve also seen you speak on behalf of others when it suited your argument. I speak for no one but myself. So here once again is the answer to your question
"I’m not sure why you think Joe Rogan’s opinion should carry weight in my decision-making. I don’t outsource my views to podcasters, celebrities, or media figures. I don’t need Rogan, or anyone else, to “tell me the truth.” I can read policy, observe outcomes, and think critically on my own." Shar
I don't think you read the full comments before replying, or you would have seen my answer to your question, or you just can't comprehend context.
I will be honest, the context of your question appeared immature, as does your current comment.
"But you dodged the question - why does such a strong Trump supporter like Joe Rogan think your view of DHS agrees with my view and not yours. What does he know that he and I do know?" ECO
I think I can offer a clearer response you may better understand. I hold my own personal views, and I’m not easily swayed by the opinions of others. I arrive at my positions on important issues through careful analysis, not headlines or talk-show hosts. In today’s terms, I suppose one might call me something of an enigma.
I'll give you another one.
Even Bill O'Reilly knows! Only magamorons deep in thet cult, and/or disgusting pos like Trump could support what is happening.
Bill O’Reilly: ‘ICE needs to deescalate’
Political commentator Bill O’Reilly on Monday warned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials against increasing its use of violence in cities across the country following the fatal shooting of a woman in Minnesota last week.
NewsNation‘s Leland Vittert asked O‘Reilly if he believes ICE needs to change “its tactics.” The former Fox News host replied, “Absolutely. ICE needs to de-escalate.”
“If you’re in a position as an ICE agent where you feel deadly force may be necessary … OK, then you should pull back and assess where you are,” O‘Reilly continued. “That woman could have been arrested after the fact, easily after the fact … she didn’t have to be confronted with a guy cursing at her and screaming at her at that moment.”
“So, my advice to Kristi Noem and to the [Department of Homeland Security] in general would be, if it gets to a point where violence may break out, you have to de-escalate it, and that is in every single police manual in this country.” he told the “On Balance” host.I didn't know he was still alive, but good for him.
You did make me look for others that know things which the Trump apologists and supporters of terrorist tactics don't"
* Sen Tom Tillis
* Tucker Carlson!
* Bill Kristol
* Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL)
* Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
* Joe Borelli
Among othersHere are others who understand the truth;
* 51 - 52% of Americans oppose the way DHS is doing its job.
* 59% of Independents say the killing of Good was not justified
* Only the MAUGA base, 39%, think the terror tactics are good.
"Amid controversy, ICE appears to double down on escalation tactics"
CNN's Josh Campbell analyzes what appears to be an escalation of ICE arrests since a woman in Minneapolis was shot and killed by a federal agent.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/us/video … ics-digvidNew documents show that murdered white mother of three and American citizen Renee Good was aware of ICE's terror tactics and was active in protecting her fellow citizens from them.
Already the DHS thugs are saying her exercise of her constitutional rights was responsible for her death.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/renee … chool-invsUpdate - at least 6 ethical US Attorneys have resigned rather than carry out the probably illegal directions of DOIJ to ignore looking into the ICE killer but focus on his victim's wife.
At least there are a few people that were in the federal gov't that still believes in ethics, law and order, and fair play.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/renee … chool-invsI had to note that even the famed conservative, Bill O’Reilly, admonished ICE to tone down its tactics. This story definitely has legs and protests are moving across the nation. We are all determined to resist Trump. It comes down between those Trumpbots who would follow Trump off the Grand Canyon verses people like me who cannot stand sharing the same country with the man and the third most important element, those that gave Trump the benefit of the doubt over the economy and such in 2024 contributing to his victory. I am not sure that he or his party will have that “benefit” in the upcoming election cycles.
I am delighted because I don’t have to search for Trump’s “Achilles Heel”, he is going to show it to me. So, I invite him to cling to the policy of “over the top” and “out of hand”.
========= article excerpt.
Alex Tabet of MSNOW reported Monday that community organizers in Minneapolis told him there has been a “surge of volunteers” since Good’s death and “more more people are raising their hands, asking to help out, resist the ICE raids” — all “despite the fact that it’s clearly a dangerous behavior.”
The videos pouring out of Minnesota onto social media right now are horrific, showing both ICE and Border Patrol agents acting like the Gestapo by assaulting peaceful people with impunity and suggesting that they will kill more people if residents don’t submit.
But time and again, those videos also show reason for hope: Ordinary people are refusing to comply. They film Noem’s secret police, blowing whistles and making a fuss, even as those masked cowards attack them. They calmly reply, camera in hand, “Go to church,” as ICE officers bellow violent threats at them. Crowds gather and run ICE agents off — just by being peaceful but annoying. In one incident, a woman at home with her baby gives sanctuary to her DoorDash driver, yelling at officers outside that she will not open the door until they return with a warrant.
========
Now that is what I like, non-violent resistance. Cant give the Gestapo an excuse, now can we?I get that people are upset about ICE, and yes, there have been troubling incidents, but calling them the “Gestapo” is way over the top. These are federal agents doing their jobs under U.S. law, not Nazis. Sure, there are videos out there showing aggressive behavior, but most clips don’t show the full context of what’s happening.
Also, saying Trump supporters blindly follow him off a cliff doesn’t really reflect reality. Lots of people voted for him because they cared about things like border security, the economy, or government accountability, not because they’re blindly loyal.
Non-violent protest is fine, even important, but framing this as pure good vs. evil oversimplifies everything. We can be critical without exaggerating or making things sound worse than they are.
As a Canadian I am shocked by how sadly our neighbour has changed. I think much of the world is experiencing the same sentiment and it will take a very strong reversal in government attitude to encourage us to trust in the US again. I shake my head in disbelief that people actually voted that man back into office. Why?
In the next breath, and just my view, it’s hard not to understand your view, given the intense political polarization and the troubling headlines that reach the world. It is clear, in my view, that many of us in the U.S. were very dissatisfied with what was happening here, not with what our neighbors thought, but because we were focusing on our own country, weighing the pros and cons, and concentrating on national priorities. Many of us were dissatisfied with the direction we seemed to be headed. From another angle, people voted the way they did because they felt previous leadership wasn’t addressing their economic concerns, immigration issues, or the sense that the government wasn’t prioritizing their safety and livelihoods. For them, it wasn’t about endorsing everything a candidate says or does, but about choosing someone they believed would shake up the status quo and represent their interests. It’s a reminder that political decisions often reflect deep frustrations and priorities that aren’t always visible to observers abroad, and that democracy allows for outcomes that mirror the values and worries of its voters, even when surprising to outsiders.
I am not sure "polarization" has much bearing. She has eyes and can see what is happening here - she doesn't need the right-wing or the left-wing telling her what to believe.
Ladymermaid openly shared her view, which I respect. I shared mine... Odd that you need to critique my view. My context in no respect was meant to, how do you put it," she doesn't need the right-wing or the left-wing telling her what to believe." Again, context matters.
You made the claim - not view - that "it’s hard not to understand your view, given the intense political polarization and the troubling headlines that reach the world. "
My appropriate response was that is not necessarily true.
And what do you think "polarization" means other than the right-wing and left-wing going into their respective camps."You made the claim - not view - that "it’s hard not to understand your view, given the intense political polarization and the troubling headlines that reach the world. "
My appropriate response was that is not necessarily true.
And what do you think "polarization" means other than the right-wing and left-wing going into their respective camps." ECO
Oh my, once again, you do not fully read comments. I am not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out. Here is my comment in full; the entire comment is view-oriented. My context is clear. Stop bothering me, I feel something is odd, and creepy how you troll me.
My comment Sharlee01 wrote:
In the next breath, and just my view, it’s hard not to understand your view, given the intense political polarization and the troubling headlines that reach the world. It is clear, in my view, that many of us in the U.S. were very dissatisfied with what was happening here, not with what our neighbors thought, but because we were focusing on our own country, weighing the pros and cons, and concentrating on national priorities. Many of us were dissatisfied with the direction we seemed to be headed. From another angle, people voted the way they did because they felt previous leadership wasn’t addressing their economic concerns, immigration issues, or the sense that the government wasn’t prioritizing their safety and livelihoods. For them, it wasn’t about endorsing everything a candidate says or does, but about choosing someone they believed would shake up the status quo and represent their interests. It’s a reminder that political decisions often reflect deep frustrations and priorities that aren’t always visible to observers abroad, and that democracy allows for outcomes that mirror the values and worries of its voters, even when surprising to outsiders.
Ran my through AI, here is the results
Short answer: yes — this comment is expressing a viewpoint, not presenting facts as settled truth or making directives.
Here’s why:
Explicit framing as opinion
The writer repeatedly signals subjectivity:
“just my view”
“in my view”
“from another angle”
These phrases clearly tell the reader this is interpretation, not assertion of objective fact.
Descriptive, not prescriptive
The comment explains why some voters may have acted as they did; it does not tell others what they should think, do, or vote for.
Acknowledges complexity and plurality
It avoids absolutes. Phrases like “many of us,” “for them,” and “often reflect” show an effort to generalize cautiously, not speak for everyone.
No factual claims requiring proof
While it references common themes (economic concerns, immigration, safety, dissatisfaction), these are framed as perceived motivations, not verifiable claims like statistics or policy outcomes.
Tone is explanatory, not argumentative
The purpose appears to be fostering understanding—especially for “observers abroad”—rather than persuading or attacking.
Bottom line
Yes, the comment shares a personal interpretation of political behavior and contextualizes voter motivation. It does not cross into misinformation, instruction, or advocacy presented as fact. It’s opinionated, but transparently so.
If you’d like, I can also:
Rewrite it to sound more neutral
Rewrite it to sound more personal
Analyze how it might be received by someone who strongly disagrees
Just tell me.
Over half of America is shaking their head in disbelief as well - that now includes many who voted for him. They are saying "What Did I DO?"
It is interesting to note that 14% of Trump voters wish they had not now that they know what they got. That would have easily let Harris win, even if they simply didn't vote."Over half of America is shaking their head in disbelief as well - that now includes many who voted for him. They are saying "What Did I DO?"
It is interesting to note that 14% of Trump voters wish they had not now that they know what they got. That would have easily let Harris win, even if they simply didn't vote." ECO
Perhaps you need to source those stars. It is very hard to spot misinformation, and one way to prevent that is offer a source.
You frequently don’t provide sources, which is frustrating for those of us who prefer verifiable facts. In this case, your wording suggests that you’re presenting factual claims rather than opinion. Given that context, I think it’s reasonable and necessary for you to provide a source to support them.Snark isn't really needed here - as I said before, just ask.
The 14% figure comes from Navigator Research’s year-end report published Dec. 18, 2025, which states that “14% of Trump voters now say they regret their vote” and attributes it largely to his handling of the economy.You’re right that the Navigator Research “2025 Wrapped: Trump’s Year in Review” report with the 14 % of Trump voters saying they regret their vote doesn’t make the methodology super obvious in the headline charts — but Navigator does include basic details about how the poll was conducted and the sample. Here’s what we can say based on the official materials:
I think the poll of 1000 people is a poor representation of Trump voters, and actually not sure that I would feel a stat of 14% bodes well to make your point.
AI You’re right that the Navigator Research “2025 Wrapped: Trump’s Year in Review” report with the 14 % of Trump voters saying they regret their vote doesn’t make the methodology super obvious in the headline charts — but Navigator does include basic details about how the poll was conducted and the sample. Here’s what we can say based on the official materials:FYI - n = 1000 is common among national polls. The result of 14% comes with a margin of error of +/- 3.3% which means if those voters had not voted or voted for Harris, we would a much safer country to live in today.
The argument presented is flawed on several levels. First, it misrepresents what polling statistics mean. A national poll with n = 1000 and a margin of error of ±3.3% does not allow you to conclude that 14% of voters would automatically produce a specific real-world outcome, like making the country “much safer.” Polls measure opinions at a point in time, not guaranteed election outcomes or direct causation between voting and societal safety.
For example, if 1000 people are polled and 14% say they support a candidate, the margin of error means the “true” support in the population could reasonably be anywhere between 10.7% and 17.3%—not a fixed 14%. It also doesn’t account for how those people actually vote, voter turnout, or local variations. Claiming that those 14% would have directly caused negative consequences is a logical leap with no empirical basis.
Moreover, tying a single candidate’s hypothetical votes to the safety of an entire country is an oversimplification of complex social dynamics. Safety depends on policy, enforcement, global events, and countless other factors, not a single election outcome.
Example: Imagine a poll of 1000 Americans showing 14% support Candidate X. Even if the margin of error is considered, it does not mean that if those voters had chosen someone else, every crime, disaster, or policy issue would have been avoided. That’s simply not how statistics or causality works.Shar,
Do you find it increasingly difficult to have an honest and thoughtful debate with the left?
It seems they only have bizarre, overly emotional and warped thinking to justify their views on things. It's sad.
I would think it would be a wonderful thing to have a debate with someone from the left who knew and understood what they were saying.
It would be a new experience for me.
Debating with the left no longer aggravates me, it just makes me sad.Mike, when asked a direct question, I answer it directly, with my unfiltered view.
Absolutely. I agree with everything you said, and I’d add that the worst part, what truly bothers me, is that many on the left seem to have upside-down morals, values, and even empathy. It’s not just that we disagree on policy; it’s that the moral compass itself appears inverted. Empathy is often directed toward abstractions, ideologies, or self-identified victim groups, while real people and real consequences are dismissed or rationalized away.
I find that deeply troubling. It feels like a dangerous phenomenon, one I genuinely struggle to understand. When moral outrage is selective, when harm is excused depending on who commits it, and when truth becomes secondary to narrative, meaningful communication becomes almost impossible. You’re not debating ideas anymore; you’re confronting a worldview where facts are negotiable, and values shift depending on political convenience.
That’s why I’ve reached the point where trying to communicate often feels useless. Not aggravating, yes, just sad. Honest debate requires shared principles: truth matters, evidence matters, and human life matters consistently. When those foundations aren’t shared, conversation collapses. I still wish thoughtful debate were possible, but too often it feels like reason is no longer the goal; winning, shaming, or signaling virtue is. And in the end, despite all the moral posturing, they have no virtues to speak of."When moral outrage is selective, when harm is excused depending on who commits it, and when truth becomes secondary to narrative, meaningful communication becomes almost impossible." - You just described is how the right and the far left approaches things.
I am a statistics major in college, among other degrees, so I know what I am talking about whether you like it or not. But I will let ChatGPT who has even more access to information than I do explain it to you.
1) What the “14%” actually is
The 14% number is simply a survey result: in that poll, 14% of Trump voters said they regret their vote at the time they were asked. A poll can legitimately report that as an estimate of attitudes at that moment.
2) Why “n = 1,000” is usually sufficient for national polling
A sample around 1,000 is common because, for a simple yes/no proportion, it produces a small sampling error at the national level.
Statistically, the margin of error for a proportion is roughly:
1.96 × SQRT(
"Perhaps you need to source those stars. It is very hard to spot misinformation, and one way to prevent that is offer a source.
You frequently don’t provide sources, which is frustrating for those of us who prefer verifiable facts. In this case, your wording suggests that you’re presenting factual claims rather than opinion. Given that context, I think it’s reasonable and necessary for you to provide a source to support them." Shar
Nothing that could be considered snark --- My comment is very honest and straightforward. As well as being polite.
Simply asked for sources and pointed out that you frequently make statements that your context indicates you are sharing facts. But no source to prove your post.
Related Discussions
- 95
ICE: Doing Their Job Amid Chaos and Criticism
by Sharlee 42 hours ago
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to carry out its duties as one of the nation’s key enforcement agencies, charged with upholding immigration law and protecting the integrity of U.S. borders. ICE agents are responsible for arresting and detaining migrants who have been deemed to...
- 41
Tens of thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in just two s
by Readmikenow 7 years ago
In just Pennsylvania and Texas thousands of non-US citizens have been registered to vote. I wonder what the numbers would be if the 48 other states performed the same type of voter purges? I've seen it in California. When people tried to do something about it, they were...
- 48
What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?
by ptosis 9 years ago
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) 500X-RE can be heard 2 miles / 2,000 meters away. At 149 decibels the blasts is not only well past the 120-decibel discomfort mark but also above the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss.And before you blast me with troll bias about how it is not used...
- 28
Do you believe that the issue of police brutality and use of excessive
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
police force is an exaggeration, even a form of self defense against the more contentious elements of American society or do you contend that there IS police brutality, especially relating to those designated as minorities and/or the disadvantaged and/or disenfranchised?
- 50
Why are non-citizens allowed free health care?
by Money Fairy 13 years ago
I am wondering why non-citizens(mainly mexicans) are allowed to come over here and have their babies for free in our hospitals??? And me a tax paying citizen with no health insurance has to pay $180 at a clinic just to get a prescription for penicylin for a cold or flu. Thank goodness I have been...
- 28
Democrats destroying the concept of Citizenship
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
Why do Democrats refer to undocumented individuals (aka migrants) as citizens?To abolish the concept of citizenship.‘Democratic citizenship’ puts emphasis on citizens' duties and the expectation that they be active in society. In order to do this, they must be familiar with and respect the...