Sickening ICE Actions
A federal officer shot a man in the leg in Minneapolis after being attacked with a shovel and broom handle while trying to make an arrest on Wednesday, officials said.
'An illegal immigrant from Venezuela was shot in the leg Wednesday evening after he and two others allegedly attacked a federal immigration officer during an arrest attempt in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security said.
DHS said federal law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted traffic stop about 6:50 p.m. CT involving the Venezuelan man, whom the agency said entered the United States illegally and was released into the country in 2022.
In an attempt to evade arrest, the suspect fled in his vehicle and crashed into a parked car, according to the statement. He then ran on foot when officers caught up with him.
DHS said the suspect resisted arrest and began violently assaulting the officer. While they struggled, two other individuals came out of a nearby apartment and also attacked the officer with a snow shovel and a broom handle, the agency said.
The statement said the original suspect then again engaged in the struggle, striking the officer with a shovel or similar object. “Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals,” the officer fired a defensive shot, striking the suspect in the leg, DHS said.
All three individuals ran back into the apartment and barricaded themselves inside, according to the statement. Both the injured suspect and the officer were hospitalized, and the two others accused of attacking the officer were taken into custody, DHS said.
Following the shooting, law enforcement officers established a perimeter as a crowd gathered near the scene. Local reporting indicates that law enforcement deployed chemical irritants against anti-enforcement agitators who were present, following similar unrest in the city
In its post, DHS also criticized Minnesota political leadership, alleging that the incident occurred amid what the agency described as organized resistance to federal immigration enforcement by Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. The agency claimed that federal officers have faced a significant increase in assaults while performing immigration operations.
The investigation into the incident is ongoing."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ill … RgKXIvi7Wx
"Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said the crowd amounted to an "unlawful assembly" and some people were throwing fireworks and rocks at officers."
"People need to leave. This is already a very tense situation and we do not need this to escalate any further," O'Hara told reporters at a news conference Wednesday night."
Source https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/US/l … hatgpt.com
The Department of Homeland Security said an ICE officer shot a person in the leg on Wednesday after the person was alleged to have attacked the officer. Both the officer and the person who was shot were taken to the hospital, DHS officials said.
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/US/l … hatgpt.comMy view
From where I stand, a major problem right now is that many so-called “protesters” aren’t just exercising peaceful speech; they are breaking the law on a regular basis, and local police are not enforcing those laws. Meanwhile, ICE is carrying out its duties under laws passed by Congress, and that context is being lost in the chaos.
Here’s what’s actually happening on the ground:
People are marching in the middle of city streets, intentionally blocking traffic and federal enforcement vehicles as part of demonstrations.
Video and reports show agitators stepping directly into the path of ICE vehicles, surrounding them, and attempting to impede their movement, which goes beyond peaceful marching into interference with official duties.
There have been instances of objects being thrown at law enforcement, including fireworks, rocks, bottles, and chunks of ice, actions that constitute assault and disorderly conduct under Minnesota law.
Some reports, which are being shared online, even claim that rioters smashed into ICE vehicles and ripped out equipment, though law enforcement footage and full verification are still emerging.
In addition to throwing things, protesters have used whistles, bullhorns, and horns to drown out commands, positioned themselves directly in front of officers’ paths, and challenged officers to “do it now if you’re going to do it”, behavior that’s confrontational and designed to impede the lawful operation.
Police response has often been limited to urging people to disperse or giving warnings rather than making arrests for these clear violations of protest and public-safety laws. That restraint means many of these unlawful actions are going unpunished in real time, which in turn encourages continued escalation rather than de-escalation.
On the flip side of the debate: ICE is not a rogue group inventing its own rules; it is a federal agency enforcing immigration laws that Congress wrote and the executive branch is charged with executing. ICE officers have a legal mandate to locate, arrest, and remove individuals who are in the country unlawfully, especially those with serious criminal backgrounds, according to federal officials. When an officer is attacked or physically confronted while performing a lawful arrest, they have the right to defend themselves and their fellow agents.
In my view, what we’re seeing in Minneapolis is not a simple case of peaceful protest. Numerous widely shared accounts and official statements describe behavior that goes well beyond lawful dissent, blocking streets, interfering with federal operations, and assaulting law enforcement, and yet local law enforcement is often not enforcing those basic laws of protest. That gap does not help anyone; it permits unlawful conduct to continue and contributes to the very instability both sides complain about. At the same time, ICE agents are carrying out duties that are explicitly mandated by Congress, and they deserve recognition for operating under that legal framework rather than being treated as if they are acting outside the law itself.
From my understanding, under the Insurrection Act of 1807, a U.S. president has the legal authority to deploy federal military forces or federalize the National Guard when ordinary law enforcement is unable to maintain public order or enforce federal laws. Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from acting as police, but the Insurrection Act is a clear exception for extraordinary situations, including violent resistance to federal authority.
Given reports of protesters assaulting ICE officers, blocking federal vehicles, throwing objects, and interfering with lawful federal operations, and considering that local police have not consistently enforced laws of protest, it seems that a president could legally justify military deployment to restore order and ensure federal laws are upheld. The law is designed for situations where civil authorities cannot control unrest, which appears to be the case in parts of Minneapolis during these incidents.
Time to send in the troops.Another lie.
DHS: "On Jan. 9, a mob of about 60 rioters threw rocks, bottles and fireworks at law enforcement officers outside the federal building in Santa Ana. Two officers were injured. Two violent rioters were arrested and were charged with assault on a federal officer and disorderly conduct. This was a highly coordinated campaign of violence where rioters wielded shields. One of the rioters, who was arrested for disorderly conduct, was taken to the hospital for a cut and was released that night."
Videos of Friday’s incident shared on social media do not reflect DHS version of events.
A spokesperson for the Santa Ana Police Department said the only physical confrontation by protesters they were aware of that night was the tossing of orange cones at the federal officers.
One video shows demonstrators throwing orange traffic cones at the federal officers, who were standing guard outside the entrance to the Santa Ana federal building.
Rodriguez, his girlfriend and other demonstrators said the cones never came close to hitting the officers. They said there were no bottles or rocks thrown and they saw no one holding shields.
Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Benjamin Vazquez said he was troubled by what took place outside of the federal building on Jan. 9 and called the federal officers’ actions “deplorable.”
“Shooting any kind of projectile into somebody’s face could lead to death,” he said.
Vazquez said it appears the agents did not try to de-escalate the situation or attempt to go inside the building where it would have been safer.
https://x.com/abc7abigail/status/200987 … 60779?s=20
https://youtu.be/QTYKz5HfJ6U?si=g3SnvHJDZiCSdgkB
https://youtu.be/dbhW0JKWI6g?si=0URhdUmCQtaggg0t
Then,
Second man shares horrific story of being blinded by officers at anti-ICE rally in Santa Ana
Homeland Security officers who blinded a young protester by shooting a less-lethal projectile at close range in Santa Ana apparently shot a second man in the face that night, blinding him too.
Britain Rodriguez, 31, a resident of Orange County, said he was standing at the bottom of some steps with other demonstrators when federal officers above opened fire at them, hitting him in the face.
“I remember hitting the ground and feeling like my eye exploded in my head,” he said.
Rodriguez was struck at the same time that 21-year-old Kaden Rummler was hit in the face. Rodriguez can be heard screaming in the background just as Rummler falls to the ground.
Rodriguez said doctors told him the projectile that hit him in his eye damaged his iris, cornea and lens. He developed a cataract too.
Rodriguez doesn’t know how much of his vision, if any, he’ll be able to get back. He said doctors told him he’ll require surgery to remove the cataract before they can determine that.
“All of America should be outraged right now, you know, we should all be very upset at minimum,” he said. “Because as far as I’m concerned, I was doing something legitimate and for a legitimate reason, you know, like a civilian was murdered by somebody who seemingly cannot get prosecuted and more than likely won’t get prosecuted, which is why I was out there.”
“When I heal up, I’m gonna be back out there, protesting against this because this makes me sick, this is not the country that I want to live in.”Calling this a ‘lie’ is dishonest. Selective social-media videos do not override official law-enforcement reports. Protests are chaotic, cameras don’t capture everything, and violence doesn’t require a full highlight reel to be real.
Throwing any object at federal officers, including traffic cones, is not a peaceful protest. Intent matters. A projectile doesn’t become harmless because it missed.
Protesters saying ‘we didn’t see rocks or shields’ proves nothing. Crowds rarely see the full picture. Law enforcement assesses coordination, behavior, and escalation, not activist testimony or optics.
The mayor’s remarks are political posturing, not evidence. Federal officers are not required to retreat from a federal building while under attack to satisfy local officials or protesters.
What’s happening here is projection: incomplete footage is being used to accuse DHS of lying because the full truth undermines the preferred narrative. Assault doesn’t stop being assault just because it’s reframed as a protest.
One can get hurt and seriously hurt when defying our laws.Do I really care? Yet, I have the right to post my view... Perhaps to offer la otra cara de la moneda...
That is typical. She thinks if she ignores the truth, which she does not agree with, it makes her stance stronger.
Pretty much what I also thought... She does well posting articles, but not on actual debating comments.
So, is your criticism of Island Bites implying we shouldn't post truthful information here and only to debate? That is what it sounds like.
No, my context is clear, and my view from what I have witnessed ---She does well posting articles, but not on actual debating comments.
Not sure I could have been clearer.Well, you confused ChatGPT. Here is what I was trying to say:
What the statement is doing rhetorically
Backhanded compliment / faint praise
“She does well posting articles” sounds positive, but it’s immediately undercut by “but not on actual debating comments.” That structure signals: you can curate, but you can’t think/argue.
Gatekeeping what counts as “real” participation
By defining “actual debating comments” as the standard, Sharlee is implicitly saying that supplying sources is not meaningful unless Island performs in Sharlee’s preferred format (point-counterpoint sparring).
Ad hominem by proxy
Instead of engaging the content of Island’s informational post, it evaluates Island’s capability (“not on actual debating”). That shifts the thread from facts to personality/competence.
A subtle discouragement tactic
Comments like this can chill participation: people learn that bringing documentation gets dismissed as “not debating,” which is often how information gets minimized without refuting it.
So, no, it wasn't clear to me or ChatGPT.LOL
It's ok. She is entitled to her opinion.
Dont worry, I'll keep posting relevant information. I just dont waste my time "debating" MAGAmorons.
Yet you tell others, including me, not to respond to your provocative postings. Why is that?
You notice how she NEVER brings up all the "lawbreakers" from Jan 6. That is what makes complaints about "breaking the law" so hypocritical, insincere, and disinginuous.
The record shows I commented extensively on January 6, 2020. Why would I even bring that up here? I don’t make comparisons between different acts of violence the way you often do. I think it’s unintelligent to compare one form of violence to another just to fit a narrative. In my view, that’s something many on the left do. No, I don’t play that game.
Yes, you did, but what I remember of your comments is that they attempted to minimize and excuse the event as you do about all of Trump's bad actions. Am I wrong?
"Selective social-media videos do not override official law-enforcement reports." - ROFL!!! Maybe if the law enforcement are local police but as soon as you cross the line to federal, since 2025 you cannot believe a word they say. Independent verification is ALWAYS needed now.
For example, the story they tell about the shooting of the Venezuelan in Minneapolis the other day STILL has not been independently verified. Based on her history, DHS and Noem could easily be lying about what took place.You are well known here to call anyone a liar, including me--- enough said.
But only when it is TRUTHFUL. Mis- and Disinformation must stop. Unlike others here, I just can't let LIES stand, they must be challenged and the LIARs identified.
Again ROFL - "What’s happening here is projection: incomplete footage is being used to accuse DHS of lying because the full truth undermines the preferred narrative. Assault doesn’t stop being assault just because it’s reframed as a protest. "
It isn't others who use incomplete footage, it is DHS. You are projecting onto others what DHS does.
Trump attacks blue metropolises and blue states to foment violence as a prelude toward martial law and disenfranchisement of those parts of the country that most assuredly will make him pay the piper in the upcoming midterms. Trump knows that he will be instantly neutralized once the Dems take control of Congress. Consequently, he must fight tooth and nail, and hit below the belt as his continued political relevance will depend upon it.
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/16/as-tru … the-worst/
Excerpt:
“The president and vice president have both said the ICE raids will continue, and more people will be involved. That’s a recipe for disaster. Some say it is an attempt to create martial law in select blue cities across the country to thwart Democratic control of Congress come the fall’s midterm elections. Trump has already said that if Democrats return to power, he fears another impeachment — a statement he has taken to repeating on an almost daily basis.”
Matters not. They prater on. Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor, the “anonymous” of Trump’s first administration, says the ultimate goal is to suppress votes, ratchet up the violence and call into question the upcoming midterm elections. “He likes to say that he’s making jokes,” Taylor said of the president. “For example; he ‘joked’ that he’d call off the midterms. But these are trial balloons, and if Trump doesn’t get enough pushback, he pushes forward. Trump’s jokes are jokes, until they aren’t.”This argument relies almost entirely on speculation, motive-reading, and anonymous or partisan sources, not evidence. ICE enforcing federal immigration law in multiple states, including red, purple, and blue, is not martial law, nor is it unprecedented. Interior enforcement has existed under every modern administration, including Obama and Biden.
Claiming that routine ICE operations are a “prelude to martial law” assumes intent without proof and ignores the basic reality that ICE lacks the authority to declare martial law, suspend elections, or disenfranchise voters. Those powers do not rest with immigration enforcement, and Congress, courts, governors, and state law enforcement remain fully operational.
The idea that Trump is “fomenting violence” by enforcing existing law flips causality on its head. Violence is not created by enforcement; it arises when political leaders and media outlets repeatedly frame lawful action as illegitimate or tyrannical. Labeling federal officers as occupiers or provocateurs is far more likely to inflame tensions than arrests carried out with local law-enforcement cooperation.
Miles Taylor’s claims, like many from former officials turned media commentators, are opinion, not fact, and rely on worst-case hypotheticals rather than demonstrated actions. Repeating phrases like “trial balloons” and “suppression” without evidence doesn’t make them true; it just creates fear.
The notion that enforcing immigration law in blue cities equals voter suppression ignores a basic truth: non-citizens cannot vote, and enforcement does not remove a single lawful voter from the rolls. Elections are run by states, not ICE.
Strong rhetoric may generate clicks, but governance requires facts. Disagree with Trump’s policies if you wish, but portraying standard federal law enforcement as a coup-in-waiting is irresponsible and undermines public trust far more than ICE doing its job.I never meant this comment to be considered as gospel, just an opinion from my perspective of seeing things, as is much of the stuff that I receive from the other side. The World According to Garp?
More lies...
Medical examiner likely to classify death of ICE detainee as homicide, recorded call says
When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the Jan. 3 death of detainee Geraldo Lunas Campos at a Texas detention camp, the agency said “staff observed him in distress,” and it gave no cause of death.
Lunas Campos had been placed in a segregated housing unit after becoming “disruptive” while waiting in line for medication at the Camp East Montana facility in El Paso, ICE said in a statement last week. Later the same day, staff observed Lunas Campos “in distress” and contacted emergency medical personnel, who were unable to save his life and pronounced him dead, according to the statement.
An employee of El Paso County’s Office of the Medical Examiner told Lunas Campos’s daughter this week that, subject to results of a toxicology report, the office is likely to classify the death as a homicide, according to a recording of the conversation.
In the recording, which the daughter shared with The Washington Post, the employee said a doctor there “is listing the preliminary cause of death as asphyxia due to neck and chest compression,” which means Lunas Campos did not get enough oxygen because of pressure on his neck and chest. Pending the results of a toxicology report, the staffer said on the recording, “our doctor is believing that we’re going to be listing the manner of death as homicide.”
A 55-year-old Cuban immigrant, Lunas Campos died following a struggle with detention staff, according to an eyewitness account and an internal ICE document reviewed by The Post.
In an interview with The Post, Santos Jesus Flores, a man who says he was detained in the segregation unit the day Lunas Campos died, said he saw at least five guards struggling with Lunas Campos after he refused to enter the segregation unit, complaining that he didn’t have his medications. Flores said he saw guards choking Lunas Campos and heard Lunas Campos repeatedly saying, “No puedo respirar” — Spanish for “I can’t breathe.” Medical staff tried to resuscitate him for an hour, after which they took his body away, Flores said.
“He said, ‘I cannot breathe, I cannot breathe.’ After that, we don’t hear his voice anymore and that’s it,” said Flores, who had contacted a family member of Lunas Campos, who in turn put him in touch with a Post reporter. The Post confirmed Flores was in Camp East Montana through ICE’s detainee locator.
Deaths in ICE detention centers have occurred with increasing frequency in recent months, as President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown floods these facilities with record numbers of detainees. At least 30 people died in detention last year — the highest in two decades — and Lunas Campos is one of four who died in the first nine days of 2026 alone, according to ICE, which posts information about all detainee deaths on its website.Interesting you should bring that up. I virtually attended a meeting of the Bradford County Board of Commissioners on Thursday where the hidden agenda item was approving a proposal to convert county property into an ICE detention center. Word got out anyway and was heavily attended by people who will be negatively impacted by such a move. I didn't go because I wouldn't have had anything to say that wasn't better said by those who did speak.
It was passed 3 - 2, which surprised me as one who was very much opposed is a Republican (of my precinct, no less). In any case, once the proposal is put together, it will be presented again. This one I will attend with facts in hand, facts such as you reference above.
One of the 3 yea votes seemed to waffle and might be persuadable when more facts are available. The major worry is that the people seem to oppose it in large numbers and the negative impact on the Starke community are very real.
Interestingly, the main proponent, even more than the consulting firm presenting the plan, is our county sheriff, Gordon Smith. He stood up an forcefully talked about the monetary benefit to the county such a move would be. He does not have an honest reputation in town and he was so forceful that I wouldn't be surprised he doesn't have a financial stake in the venture.If that medical examiner does classify it as a homicide, he better be prepared to have Trump investigate or attack him.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jud … 8667597326
Menendez’s order bars Homeland Security and ICE officials involved in Operation Metro Surge from “using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity.” The judge also prohibited federal agents from stopping vehicles following them, as long as those vehicles are maintaining a safe and “appropriate” distance.
Whether this is actually taken place or not, is this not a reasonable ruling from the court?Texas hospitals were hit with more than $1 billion in health care costs racked up by illegal immigrants during fiscal year 2025, the first year the state began tracking the figures.
The data, compiled by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and obtained by Texas Scorecard, shows hospitals logged 313,742 visits linked to individuals not legally present, with total costs reaching $1.05 billion by the end of the fiscal year.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illega … her-report
Statewide Medi-Cal (Medicaid) Spending on Immigrants
• California has expanded its Medicaid program (called Medi-Cal) to cover many low-income people in the state regardless of immigration status. This includes care that goes beyond federally required emergency services. Because federal law generally only reimburses emergency care for people without lawful immigration status, California must pay most of the costs for non-emergency care out of its own funds.
• According to official state figures and legislative reporting:
California is spending roughly $8–9+ billion per year on healthcare (via Medi-Cal) for people without legal immigration status. This includes hospital care and other medical services — not just emergency visits. Estimates vary by year and source, but the figure is widely reported around these levels in recent budgets and budget analyses.
New York City (Health + Hospitals & Services)
According to the New York City Comptroller’s office, asylum seeker (migrant) expenses — which include shelter, services, and care — show significant spending that incorporates health-care costs:
NYC spent $1.41 billion on asylum seeker shelter and services in FY 2023; about $3.70 billion in FY 2024; and $3.02 billion in FY 2025 as of late 2025. Much of that goes through departments including NYC Health + Hospitals, which provides medical and hospital services.
An Independent Budget Office (IBO) analysis estimated basic medical costs for roughly 23,800 asylum seekers (including primary care, testing, vaccines) at about $42 million over one year — though that figure was based on a specific cohort and doesn’t cover full emergency or hospital care.
Health-system contracts for migrant support (including care hubs) have also been part of broader spending, with one report noting up to roughly $325 million in migrant-related contracts approved by NYC Health + Hospitals for staffing and related services (which would include security and operational support at centers providing care).
Estimated Healthcare / Hospital Costs for Undocumented Immigrants (2024)
• According to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)’s Hospital Patient Immigration Status data, hospitals and the healthcare system in Florida incurred about $659.9 million in costs in 2024 associated with care provided to people who were not lawfully present in the U.S. — largely from uncompensated hospital care and emergency visits.
My state -- Michigan Does Not Have Broad State-Funded Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants
Unlike some states (e.g., California, New York, Minnesota), Michigan does not provide general state-funded Medicaid or health-insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants. Federal Medicaid and CHIP programs generally exclude undocumented immigrants from eligibility, and Michigan has not created a state-funded alternative.
Do you know what your states may have spent?Sharlee, if I am not mistaken, you broke several of your own rules with that post. First, context is not provided. Second, it just shows one side of the coin. Third, you didn't debate anything.
This is how ChatGPT parsed your post which I reviewed and edited.
As to the numbers—those numbers may be “cost” figures, but the way you’re using them mixes apples, oranges, and watermelons. You’re listing gross numbers from different categories and treating them as if they all mean “what taxpayers paid for undocumented immigrants.”
A) You’re listing gross costs, not net costs
Two examples right in your own post:
• Florida’s ~$659.9M is an estimated “cost of care” figure derived from hospital reporting. That is not the same thing as a clean ledger of “what taxpayers paid.” These reporting systems also tend to include large “declined to answer” buckets, so the classification itself is not airtight.
• NYC’s $3.02B (FY2025) is not “healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.” The NYC Comptroller labels that category “asylum seeker shelter and services”—shelter, meals, logistics, contracting, staffing, and related services. Some health-related activity may be inside broader spending, but it’s not a “medical bill” total.
So before we even debate policy, we need to be honest about what these figures are—and what they aren’t.
B) Even if we add your totals together as stated, they’re still small compared with the federal fiscal impact of immigration—and they’re not national totals
If I take your headline numbers at face value:
• Texas hospital costs: $1.05B (FY2025)
• Florida hospital costs: $0.66B (2024)
• California Medi-Cal expansion (undocumented): ~ $8–9B per year (often cited around ~$8.5B)
• NYC asylum seeker shelter/services: $3.02B (FY2025)
That’s roughly $13B in big, attention-getting figures.
Now, a clean comparison requires a clean timeframe. Those are basically one-year-ish numbers. CBO’s big “surge” net effect estimate is about $0.9T over 2024–2034—which is roughly ~$90B per year on average of income over costs. So even with rough annualization, ~$13B/year is smaller than ~$90B/year.
But there are two huge “honesty clauses” here:
1) Your $13B isn’t national. It’s a handful of states plus NYC.
2) Your $13B isn’t one category. It’s a rhetorical pile-up: hospital “cost of care” estimates + a state insurance-policy line item + a city shelter/services budget.
C) Your post also omits the taxes immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—already pay
A costs-only list leaves out a major offset.
Undocumented immigrants alone paid an estimated $96.7B in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022, including about $37.3B to state and local governments. ITEP also estimates state-by-state undocumented contributions (including large totals in CA, TX, FL, and NY).
You don’t have to like the policy implications to acknowledge the accounting fact: the “balance sheet” has two sides, and your post is only one column.
D) The real issue is distribution: states/localities can bear costs while the federal government captures more revenue
This is the part that matters.
• Federal vs state/local isn’t symmetrical: the federal government can capture more of the revenue while states/localities feel costs first (schools, shelters, some uncompensated care).
• And no, the federal government does not automatically “true up” states by passing those gains back. Sometimes Congress funds targeted reimbursements or grants, but it’s piecemeal and political—not a standing revenue-sharing formula.
So yes: cite costs—but if we’re going to argue in good faith, we need consistent categories, consistent timeframes, and both sides of the ledger (costs and revenues/offsets).
Sources provided on requestAS usual, you did not decipher context. I posted facts with most sources. My only words were in question form. "Do you know what your states may have spent?: Shar
"Sharlee, if I am not mistaken, you broke several of your own rules with that post. First, context is not provided. Second, it just shows one side of the coin. Third, you didn't debate anything." ECO
I very simply share statistics on a topic I chose, along with one relevant question, to support the subject. In this case, the topic is state spending on medical care for migrants. Thus far, I have not debated the issue myself; that is for anyone who wishes to present another perspective, the other side of the coin. My intention was simply to open a subject for discussion on the forum.
I see that you prefer to divert or criticize my post; please stay on topic or refrain from commenting.
I note I did not source Michigan
https://www.uscisguide.com/state-regula … e_vignetteWhen you post a one-sided, out-of-context set of facts that IMPLY something that is not true, it must be answered. If you didn't mean or stand-by what you posted, you should make that clear.
In any case, the readers now have the rest of the facts plus analysis.I hear your attempt to break down my post into technicalities, but let’s stay on the subject: migrants, regardless of category, are costing taxpayers millions every year, in medical care, shelter, education, and other public services. That is the point I raised, and it is factual. Whether you want to debate net versus gross costs, or what portion is offset by taxes, does not change the reality that state and local taxpayers are footing bills in the billions annually.
Your breakdown reads more like a diversion than a debate. Quibbling over categories, one-year versus multi-year averages, or federal versus local distribution does not erase the fact that taxpayers are paying, period. My post was never intended to present a complete accounting of all offsets; it was meant to highlight the burden on taxpayers in concrete, observable ways.
I wonder how many Americans would be interested in your argument if they came to realize the enormous costs that migrants bring to their state.
If your goal is to argue about the net fiscal impact, that’s your choice, but don’t pretend that pointing out technical nuances nullifies the real, measurable costs borne by states and cities today. Stay on topic, or don’t post to my comments. I also don’t respect your lack of skill in communication, especially when it’s used to obscure the point rather than engage it.
Hence, my question, "Do you know what your states may have spent?"
I felt it might prompt one to research their state and face the facts.
I live in Michigan, I did my research, and I am satisfied and pleased to see my tax dollars are not being spent in excess on migrants.
How about your state?
I was also prompted to look at how many illegal migrants ICE has arrested in Michigan compared to Illinois. Where ICE was not supported. Here in Michigan, our law enforcement cooperate with ICE, and we have not had any violence occur around ICE doing their job.
" Here’s available reporting:
ICE arrests in Michigan (Jan–Oct 2025):
✅ This is factual. Multiple sources report that through mid‑October 2025, ICE made roughly 2,349 arrests in Michigan. (themidwesterner.news)
Comparison to Illinois:
⚠ Partially accurate. ICE arrests in the Chicago/Illinois area are reported at hundreds to low-thousands through similar periods in 2025, but numbers vary by source. Some reporting cites ~1,800 arrests in Chicago area from June–October, so your statement that Michigan exceeded Illinois in arrests from Jan–Oct 2025 is plausible, but not definitively confirmed with exact statewide totals for Illinois. (wbez.org
)" https://www.wbez.org/immigration/2025/1 … hatgpt.com
https://www.themidwesterner.news/2026/0 … hatgpt.com
Arrests: Independent data shows at least ~10,800+ ICE arrests in Florida in 2025---
It often seems like Florida hasn’t seen the same level of highly visible clashes or violent confrontations with ICE that we’ve heard about in places like Minneapolis. They certainly are out pacing other states in arrests.Without migrants the economy in the US would probably go in free fall.
5.7 million immigrants are in low‑wage jobs. Jobs that many Americans don't want to do. Healthcare, service work and retail and transportation jobs.
Migrants are essential in the cleaning industry and the healthcare.
A country, the US and Europe can't do without them.
And then there are many jobs like fruit picking and working in factories where if the jobs were given to American citizens the product would be to expensive and the factories would have to go to low wages countries.
And undocumented immigrants don't have the right on medicaid, medicare, Childrens Health Insurance, education, non emergency service, ACA and most federal financial aid.
So if you look at the total financial picture Sharlee, of what the state has to pay and what the financial gain is of migrants. I don't think it is a financial burden for a country.They are also deeply in the agricultural, construction, and leisure industries. That is why those industries are beginning to struggle because their labor force is being deported or going into hiding.
"Without migrants"
Here is your problem as is the problem with all people on the left.
You don't seem to comprehend there is a difference between legal and illegal migrants. There are no shortage of people willing to come to the United States legally. These are people who should be welcomed.
It is the people who come here illegally, flaunt our laws, live off our social safety nets and produces little or nothing. THOSE are the ones who need to leave.
There is not reason for them not to leave. If they self deport, the US government will give them $3,000 and a free plane ride to their home country. That is a lot of money in some of those countries. They will then have a chance to come back into the United States legally.
There really is no reason for any immigrants to be here illegally.Sharlee was talking about migrants, regardless of category not me.
I pointed out that there are a lot of legal migrants working in the US, especially in low paid jobs like healthcare and factories and service work.
And that if you are an illegal immigrant you don't have rights on social benefits.As far as Trump is concerned, there is no such thing as a "legal migrant".
When I read words like " flaunt our laws, live off our social safety nets and produces little or nothing." then I know I am probably dealing with a racist who repeats Right-Wing Lies.
You might also notice that it is that false perception that is important to them and not that they have the equivalent infraction of running a red light (which is more dangerous than crossing the border)."And that if you are an illegal immigrant you don't have rights on social benefits."
Actually you are not SUPPOSED to have rights on social benefits. There are democrat states who engage in serious fraud and get illegal immigrants social benefits at the cost of the US taxpayer. The democrat sponsored fraud is in the billions of dollars. Some illegal immigrants are living better than US citizens on democrat government waste, fraud and abuse.That's a different discussion. If there is a fraud it should be acted upon in court. I'm not that deep into US law and the news that I know of any court case where billions of dollars are given to illegal immigrants.
And here is your problem as is with all people on the Right - your horror of "illegal" immigrants is fake, is insincere, you don't really mean it, you are just using that as an excuse so that Trump can brutalize and terrorize them.
Your inability to comprehend the legalities of immigration law found in 8 US Code 1325 is as always....amazing.
I'm glad you pointed this out. Many do not understand our long-standing laws that govern immigration legality. Many are satisfied with ignoring our laws when it suits a narrative. I might add a narrative that I find upside down and void of morality.
I have to strongly push back on this narrative. Saying that without migrants the economy would collapse is false. The U.S. economy is built on innovation, productivity, and domestic consumption, not just low-wage labor. Americans do work these jobs when wages and benefits are fair. Claiming that people won’t do them is just a way to justify keeping wages artificially low so companies can exploit immigrant labor, especially undocumented workers.
Calling migrants “essential” in healthcare, cleaning, factories, or agriculture is misleading. These jobs can absolutely be done by Americans if wages and working conditions were fair. Technology and workforce planning can also fill gaps. Besides, we have laws that allow workers from other countries to come in legally to fill jobs, from tech roles to picking lettuce. Saying the country “can’t do without them” is classic leftist rhetoric designed to guilt citizens and protect corporate profit over American workers.
And the idea that undocumented immigrants don’t cost taxpayers is completely wrong. While they may not qualify for federal programs like Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, or federal financial aid, they still use public resources, and states spend millions every year on their care. Their children attend public schools, hospitals must provide emergency medical care, and local governments support shelters, food assistance, and public safety services. Suggesting they are “cost-free” ignores these real expenses.
The argument that giving jobs to Americans would make products too expensive is really about protecting corporate profit, not the public good. Higher wages may slightly increase costs, but they strengthen the economy long-term by boosting domestic consumption and reducing dependence on public aid.
In short, the U.S. can function without mass immigration. Migrants are not an economic necessity; they are a policy choice with measurable costs and benefits. Framing them as “essential” while ignoring the real fiscal burden is dishonest and a classic example of leftist rhetoric.
We have immigration laws that were set to manage the needs of employment, and it should not be so hard for those who do not live on our soil to understand that laws are made to be followed. Without the need for excuses that suits breaking them.“I strongly disagree with this framing. Saying “without migrants the economy would go into free fall” is an exaggeration. The U.S. economy is built on innovation, productivity, and domestic consumption, not just low-wage labor.”
(But low wage labor is a substantial part of it, why else has the federal government not recognize the need to raise the minimum wage in almost 16 years?)
“ Americans do work these jobs when wages and benefits are fair; it’s not that we are unwilling, it’s that companies often keep wages artificially low and exploit immigrant labor, especially undocumented workers.”
(That is the rub, Sharlee, fairness has never been what it is all about. One must consider capitalism and the very nature of the beast)
“The claim that undocumented immigrants don’t get benefits ignores that many still receive public education for their children, emergency care, and some state-funded services.”
(Not if the Trump regime has anything to say about it)
“The argument that giving jobs to Americans would make products too expensive is really about protecting corporate profits, not about the public good. Higher wages may slightly increase costs, but they strengthen the economy long-term by boosting domestic consumption and reducing reliance on government aid.”
(This is the only thing that you have said that I can agree with)
To clear up another red-herring,
Trump is corporate profits incarnate. Republicans are the ones that resist raising the minimum wage so that more Americans can afford to assume the jobs that are presently not being paid adequately, so don’t blame the Left.Thank you Credence. These are more or less the answers I would have given.
It is simply a brutal unpopular fact that countries need unschooled low wages workers.
The left doesn't dare to talk about it as it will get a huge push back from the right and lose votes and the right doesn't dare to talk about it as it does not fit the underbelly opinions of it's voters.
But the left and the right know that cheap exploited labour is a fact. (raising minimum wage is the answer, but even the left will find this difficult to do when they are in power...)
Trump won't change this situation. ICE is there to terrorize left wing states, not to lower the cheap immigrant workforce that is necessary to manufacture cheap products like hamburgers and picked fruit.Cred,
I would agree that a lack of legal immigrants would not put the US economy in a free fall.
I believe it WOULD damage it.
There is a nursing shortage as well as a shortage of workers in other industries. This includes engineers, doctors, college professors and more. The needs for such important skilled workers is usually filled by legal immigrants. If it wasn't for the guest worker program that covers the harvest season around the United States, many of our crops wouldn't be harvested.
I believe legal immigrants are a vital part of our economy. They come in legally, fill important positions, and add greatly to the US economy and society. Legal immigrants work, obey the laws, and are essential.
We couldn't function as a country without legal immigrants. They are that important.
What we don't need is ILLEGAL immigrants. They are a drain on our society.Probably more information than you bargained for Mike….
Trump attacks legal immigrants and immigration as well:
The short answer is yes — according to multiple credible news and policy analyses, Donald Trump has taken actions that restrict or reduce legal immigration, though the motivations and interpretations vary depending on political perspective. I’ll walk you through what the sources say, using only factual reporting.
---"restrict or reduce legal immigration"
Yeah, same story all over the world. A country has a right to determine who does and does not come into their country. My wife's sister immigrated to Australia, you would be surprised at everything she had to do to go there. I have a cousin who immigrated to the UK. Same thing, lots of rules an restrictions.
Immigrating into any country legally is an involved process.
Ok, but I do not like the gestapo type methods used to ferret them out….
I see where you’re coming from, but I have a few different thoughts. Yes, the federal minimum wage hasn’t gone up since 2009, and that’s true, but that doesn’t automatically mean Americans aren’t willing to work low-wage jobs. Wages are set by the market, and companies aren’t “evil” for following the rules of supply and demand. That’s just capitalism at work.
On the point about undocumented workers, it’s misleading to say they’re the reason wages are kept low. Many industries rely heavily on American labor too, and if wages were fair, Americans would take these jobs without question. Exploitation isn’t automatic just because someone happens to be undocumented.
As for benefits, yes, undocumented immigrants do get public education for their kids and emergency care, but let’s not overstate it. Most federal programs are off-limits, and Trump’s policies made it even harder to access what little existed.
I do agree, though, that higher wages could help the economy overall. But the idea that raising the minimum wage is purely about fairness or the public good ignores the real trade-offs: businesses face higher costs, and some jobs could be reduced or automated. It’s not a simple moral question; it’s an economic balancing act.
So while I get your points, I think this is more complicated than just “companies exploit immigrants and Americans won’t work low-wage jobs.” The system is bigger than that, and it’s driven by market forces just as much as by fairness or politics.I see where you’re coming from, but I have a few different thoughts. Yes, the federal minimum wage hasn’t gone up since 2009, and that’s true, but that doesn’t automatically mean Americans aren’t willing to work low-wage jobs. Wages are set by the market, and companies aren’t “evil” for following the rules of supply and demand. That’s just capitalism at work.
————-
Do you see? Capitalism is at the very crux of labor exploitation. What about all the complaints from corporate capitalists that many jobs are difficult to fill with American citizens? The low wages attract only indigent and desperate people and those often times are illegal migrants. Reliance on market forces have to be moderated as not always fair and just. That basic truth was establish almost 100 years ago. Who does not recognize that today?
By not paying wages adjusted for inflation since 2009, the capitalist forces us all to subsidize people who do not earn enough to tend to basic necessities. Nothing is automatic including universal exploitation that applied to just the undocumented, but that tendency is there and cannot be mitigated.
It is your folks that are not making the wages fair. The Right, hard core Capitalists, Republicans, conservatives, etc are certainly going to get their share of the blame from me.Cred, I get your point regarding exploitation, but I still think it misses the bigger picture. Wages reflect what businesses can sustain and what workers are willing to accept, not inherently a moral failing. If companies could pay more and stay in business, they would. The challenge isn’t capitalism itself; it’s about creating opportunities and incentives so that people can succeed, rather than expecting the market to guarantee fairness. Low wages don’t mean workers aren’t willing; they often reflect economic realities, not exploitation.
I see your point about inflation, but I don’t see it as a mandate for automatic exploitation. Wages are influenced by productivity, business sustainability, and the value workers bring, not just the cost of living. People can’t rely solely on government subsidies as a fix for market realities. The solution isn’t to blame capitalism; it’s to create policies that encourage growth, skill-building, and opportunities so more people can earn higher wages legitimately.
I get that you’re frustrated with wage levels, but blaming an entire system or group oversimplifies things. Capitalism doesn’t force low wages; it creates opportunities for people to earn more if they acquire skills, work hard, or innovate. The system that made the U.S. the richest nation also allows anyone willing to work to improve their situation. The problem isn’t capitalism, it’s ensuring people take advantage of the opportunities it provides.
Credence, let me expand on your reply. To keep it relatively short, I will break it down by quotes.
TO; “I strongly disagree with this framing. Saying “without migrants the economy would go into free fall” is an exaggeration. The U.S. economy is built on innovation, productivity, and domestic consumption, not just low-wage labor.”
I agree “freefall” is overstated. But your reply swings to the opposite exaggeration by implying migrant labor is basically a rounding error because “innovation” and “consumption” drive the economy.
That framing misses the actual nexus:
1) Innovation and productivity don’t negate labor constraints—they operate through them.
Even a high-productivity economy still needs workers to produce goods, build housing, staff hospitals, run logistics, and keep food supply chains functioning. If you remove a meaningful share of the labor force, output doesn’t stay the same just because we admire “innovation.”
2) Domestic consumption depends on supply.
People can want to buy things all day long; if there aren’t enough workers to build homes, process food, staff restaurants, and move freight, you get shortages, delays, and higher prices. That’s not “freefall,” but it is a real drag on growth and affordability.
3) This isn’t “just low-wage labor.”
Immigrants work across the skill spectrum, but even in lower-wage sectors (17%), the macro effect is real because those sectors are inputs to everything else: housing construction affects rents; caregiving affects labor-force participation of citizens; agriculture affects food prices; logistics affects inflation broadly. Of note, 66% earn between $35k and $104K, while 16% earn greater $104K. (ask ChatGPT if you need to)
4) The adjustment story isn’t painless or quick.
Yes, in theory wages rise and businesses adapt. In practice, the transition is messy: higher labor costs pass through to prices, projects get delayed (especially construction), and some production relocates or is forgone. That’s “hurt,” not “no big deal.”
5) The real debate is magnitude and time horizon—not whether there’s an effect.
If you want to say “the economy won’t collapse,” fine. I’m saying: a rapid reduction in migrant labor will meaningfully tighten labor markets in key sectors, slow output, and raise costs—especially housing and services—until substitutions (training, automation, mobility) catch up.
So here’s the honest version:
“Freefall” is hyperbole—but “little effect” is also misleading. The U.S. economy is driven by innovation and consumption, yes, but both are constrained by labor supply and sector bottlenecks. Large-scale removals or labor-force shrinkage would materially hurt growth and prices.Thanks
So, the truth is somewhere in the middle. My fundamental point is that a dearth of labor in substantial levels at the lower economic ladders will based on supply and demand will increase prices at the checkout. I am feeling this already at key points for certain goods and services.Some argue that deporting low-wage workers will cost us more, but U.S. law already provides legal pathways for foreign workers through visa programs. These visas can be adjusted as needed to meet labor demands, and workers are properly vetted before entering the workforce. This protects American workers, maintains a lawful labor market, and still allows businesses to get the workers they need without relying on illegal labor.
I don’t understand why anyone would argue we should tolerate illegal entry when we have functional, long-standing programs that allow people from other nations to work here legally, as we have done for decades. The claim that we ‘need’ illegal workers often seems more about benefiting certain businesses by keeping wages low. It’s fair to ask: why should cheaper goods come at the expense of exploiting others or undermining the rule of law? That argument feels deeply hypocritical.
I once knew a nation that wanted to give immigrants a real chance at a better life, not a life spent hiding in the shadows, scraping together pennies so the rest of us can save a few cents on a head of lettuce. In that sense, this attitude disturbingly mirrors exploitation, treating people as disposable labor rather than as human beings deserving dignity.Again, those visa programs were not filling the need even before Trump cut them in half.
I am really curious how you take CBO's findings that migrants are a net positive and reverse that to claim that migrants are a net negative?
"✅ This is factual. Multiple sources report that through mid‑October 2025, ICE made roughly 2,349 arrests in Michigan. (themidwesterner.news)" - so what if that is factual. All that tells me is that businesses are being hurt and that 2,340 (i'll grant that 9 of them might have been real criminals) tax paying members of society can no longer contribute to the state and federal governments while Trump is wasting billions to bankrupt America like he did his casinos.
"Arrests: Independent data shows at least ~10,800+ ICE arrests in Florida in 2025---" - Trump hasn't invaded Florida with 3,000 federal thugs either, has he.
And now Florida will take in much less in revenue and businesses will struggle even more all to satisfy the Fear of the Other replacing them.In simple terms: Florida didn’t need 3,000 federal ICE agents “invading” the state because most of the work was done in cooperation with local and state law enforcement. That’s why Florida ends up with the highest number of deportations of undocumented migrants, it’s not because federal agents are taking over, it’s because the state is actively partnering with them.
Also, the situation hasn’t triggered major protests or violence, which shows that these operations, while large in scale, are being carried out without widespread civil unrest. In other words, it’s a law-enforcement effort, not a military-style invasion, and it’s happening with the state’s support and coordination.
Copy/[aste AI ChatGPT
Florida’s Economy Is Large and Still Growing
Florida’s economy is now huge — approaching $1.7 trillion in total economic output — and has been ranked by some outlets as the #1 state economy in the nation for growth and job creation multiple years in a row.
The **Florida Chamber Foundation reports the state ranks 15th in the world if it were its own country by GDP, surpassing nations like Spain.
Jobs and Business Activity
Florida added 128,100 private‑sector jobs in the year through June 2025, with growth in a wide range of industries and a lower unemployment rate than many states.
New business formations continue strong: millions formed since 2019, including nearly 590,000 in 2025 alone, indicating continued entrepreneurial activity.
Some metro areas like Miami and Tampa saw above‑average job growth, reinforcing that businesses are still hiring and expanding.
Revenue and Tax Base Are Not Collapsing
The state’s tourism industry alone contributed about $33.6 billion in tax revenue in 2024 and supported 1.8 million jobs — a huge tax base that helps Florida fund services without a state income tax.
Tourism spending grew year‑over‑year in 2024, and while future visitor trends can vary, travel remains one of the state’s most powerful economic engines.
Florida’s economic forecasts did warn of uncertainty and weaker variables ahead, but not collapse — economists continue to project revenue growth, though with some risk.
Revenue and Tax Base Are Not Collapsing
The state’s tourism industry alone contributed about $33.6 billion in tax revenue in 2024 and supported 1.8 million jobs — a huge tax base that helps Florida fund services without a state income tax.
Tourism spending grew year‑over‑year in 2024, and while future visitor trends can vary, travel remains one of the state’s most powerful economic engines.
Florida’s economic forecasts did warn of uncertainty and weaker variables ahead, but not collapse — economists continue to project revenue growth, though with some risk.
"If your goal is to argue about the net fiscal impact, that’s your choice, but don’t pretend that pointing out technical nuances nullifies the real, measurable costs borne by states and cities today. " -
Sharlee, nobody is denying that states and cities incur real costs. The point is that your post presents gross costs as if they’re the whole story—and that is simply not honest analysis.
1) “Real costs” are not nullified by context, but, as we see, they can be misrepresented without it.
2) Your examples mix categories (hospital “cost of care” estimates, state policy spending, and city shelter/services) and imply they are the same thing: “what undocumented immigrants cost taxpayers.” They aren’t.
3) As any good cost and economic analyst knows, if we’re going to cite costs, we also have to cite the offsetting benefits: taxes paid, jobs filled, and economic growth. Otherwise it’s a one-column balance sheet.
So yes—let’s talk about state/local burdens. But we should do it honestly: define the category, quantify it cleanly, and then discuss the policy fix (federal reimbursement, faster work authorization, targeted aid). Calling that “technical nuances” is just a way to avoid a complete accounting.
I have no intention of communicating with you on any serious issue. I don't feel it's worth my time. Perhaps others will take up your comments.
Just as I thought, video and audio is coming out putting the LIE to some of DHS's story about why ICE agents shot a Venezuelan man. And if some is a lie, then none of it can be believed.
"In a statement Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security said the agent targeted, chased and then shot the man in self-defense as the agent was being “ambushed” by three people. But accounts in the videos contradict the identity of the person DHS says federal agents chased, and the details of the shooting itself."
The call appears to contradict ICE’s claims in DHS’ Thursday statement. There, ICE said it was Sosa-Celis who was driving a vehicle that crashed, and Sosa-Celis who fled on foot before agents struggled with him on the ground.
In the call, Sosa-Celis’ partner seems to say the driver of the car was not Sosa-Celis, but Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna — another man ICE detained during the same raid.
“Julio arrived first. They were chasing Alfredo — he had to jump from his car,” Sosa-Celis’ partner says during the call. “He ran and they threw themselves on top of him (Alfredo). After, Julio (from inside the house) threw open the door, and they shot.” (I had to get ChatGPT to interpret that last paragraph)
In other words, ICE shot another innocent person!!!
These barely trained Keystone Kops don't seem to be able know who is who. This is the second time they have identified the wrong man. The first time the man they claimed was in a crashed car was actually in an ICE car!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/18/us/ice-a … inneapolisDOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation After Church Service Disrupted by Anti-ICE Protesters in Minnesota
I find it deeply troubling that a place of worship has once again become a target for political agitation. On Sunday, during a church service in Minneapolis, dozens of anti-ICE protesters forced their way into Cities Church, interrupting worship and frightening congregants. The disruption was not accidental. According to church attendees, the group believed, incorrectly, that one of the pastors served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s St. Paul field office.
Roughly halfway through the service, the agitators burst into the sanctuary, shouting and halting worship. Several church members later said the harassment did not end there. As families attempted to leave, protesters followed them into the parking lot, surrounding vehicles and attempting to block people from driving away. This was not peaceful protest; it was intimidation.
In response, the Trump administration announced a civil rights investigation into the incident. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that the Department of Justice is now involved and made clear that targeting churches crosses a serious legal and moral line.
“I just spoke to the Pastor in Minnesota whose church was targeted,” Bondi said in a statement. “Attacks against law enforcement and the intimidation of Christians are being met with the full force of federal law.”
She went on to warn that federal authorities would not hesitate to act if state and local officials fail to maintain order. “If state leaders refuse to act responsibly to prevent lawlessness, this Department of Justice will remain mobilized to prosecute federal crimes and ensure that the rule of law prevails,” Bondi said.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also condemned the incident, stating plainly that religious intimidation will not be tolerated. “President Trump will not tolerate the intimidation and harassment of Christians in their sacred places of worship,” she said. Leavitt confirmed that the Department of Justice has launched a full investigation into what she described as a “despicable incident.”
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, echoed that sentiment, stating that her team is actively investigating the matter. “We will not rest until we are able to deliver justice,” she said.
Despite video footage showing a church service being disrupted and congregants harassed, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has continued to defend the broader anti-ICE demonstrations. Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation, Frey rejected claims that protests in the city have become lawless or dangerous, instead placing blame on the federal government’s immigration enforcement presence.
“This is not about safety,” Frey said. “What this is about is coming into our city by the thousands and terrorizing people simply because they’re Latino or Somali.” He described the protests as peaceful and said residents were simply “standing up for their neighbors,” calling the movement “inspiring.” REALLY! inspiring, what a dangerous left-wing nut job.
I strongly disagree with that characterization.
There is nothing inspiring about storming a church, disrupting a religious service, or following families into a parking lot in an effort to intimidate them. This incident reflects a growing and dangerous pattern within leftist activism, one where ideology is used to justify breaking the law, silencing opposition, and showing open contempt for religion. Once again, what is clearly wrong is defended as righteous, and what is lawful is framed as immoral.
Places of worship should be off-limits, regardless of political disagreements. When activists decide that their cause gives them permission to trample religious freedom, they reveal something deeply unsettling about their values. This is not compassion. It is coercion. It is not justice. It is lawlessness dressed up as moral superiority.
If we are to remain a society governed by laws rather than mobs, then incidents like this must be confronted honestly, not excused, not reframed, and not ignored. When bad is called good and good is called bad, the consequences reach far beyond one church in Minnesota.I must point out that very little of what you said was accurate.
* It wasn't Minneapolis - it was Saint Paul
* They didn't "FORCE" their way in - they came in with the rest of the parishioners.
* It wasn't "dozens" as you claim - at best you could say "group" to be accurate
* The protesters were probably right about the pastor and not "incorrect" as you say. The pastor's name is David Easterwood. The ICE official being referenced is David Easterwood. AP says the personal information matched.
* As to congregants themselves being harassed - there is no evidence that they were. Annoyed by the chanting perhaps, maybe they even joined in, the point is nobody knows.
* Protesters followed them into the parking lot - That appears to be a partisan Fox News truth. The fact is that the protestors left on their own accord and were observed walking down an alley when the police arrived.
* The "Storming" of a church NEVER HAPPENED. - they walked in with the rest of the congregation.
So, it seems the ONLY ACCURATE part is that protestors disrupted the service mid-sermon. (and then left on their own accord)And yet...if a group of MAGA followers came into your church looking for some pastor that had the same name as a leftist, I am sure your OPINION would be that they were storming the church.
The protesters were probably right about the pastor
They are.
I honestly think the protest was unnecessary. I get why they did it. Still, they could have stayed outside the church. They were gonna be heard anyway.
Then again, that's nothing compared to what ICE is doing to so many.
VIDEO
"FBI briefly opened a civil rights investigation into ICE agent who shot Renee Good but then shifted to focus on his possible assault"
This has to be the most corrupt administration in American history led by the most corrupt president in American history.
"The FBI briefly opened a civil rights investigation into the ICE agent who fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis before shifting to a probe focused on whether the agent was assaulted, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
The investigation now focuses on the conduct of Good and those around her, including her widow, rather than the agent, the sources said.
In the past, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division typically launched investigations into law enforcement-related shootings, potential police brutality, or possible hate crimes to ensure officers did not violate a victim’s rights — even if no charges were filed. Departing from that practice is highly unusual.
Some inside the Justice Department saw the switch as politically motivated, and CNN previously reported at least six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned after being told to shift their focus.
CNN has reached out to the Justice Department. The FBI declined to comment for this story.
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department only investigates law enforcement shootings when it’s “appropriate to investigate. And that’s not the case here.”
“The Department of Justice, our civil rights unit, we don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody for putting his life in danger,” Blanche said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “We never do.”
The Justice Department is investigating whether Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey obstructed federal law enforcement through their public statements, CNN has reported."White House says Walz, Frey incited chaos after anti-ICE mob storms Minneapolis church
White House accuses Tim Walz and Jacob Frey of inciting chaos as DOJ opens federal civil rights investigation.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white- … lis-churchIf Trump carries out his deportation plan, here is the latest update on the economic consequences:
Short term (next 6–24 months): tighter labor, higher costs, slower growth
* Labor supply shock → shortages in specific industries, especially where unauthorized workers are concentrated. Past research expects knock-on job losses for U.S.-born workers too, because immigrant labor and native labor are often complements (firms scale back, automate, or don’t expand).
* Higher prices in labor-intensive sectors, with inflation running above baseline for a time in models of large deportation scenarios. PIIE’s modeling explicitly finds inflation higher than baseline through 2028, with agriculture hit hardest (they note “up to 16%” of the sector’s workforce could be removed, pushing prices up).
* Weaker consumer spending because deported households aren’t buying locally and because enforcement salience can cause remaining immigrant households to pull back on spending; a Brookings/AEI 2026 update estimates reduced immigration already implies $60–$110B less consumer spending across 2025–2026 in their scenarios.
* Overall GDP growth slows versus baseline. Brookings’ January 2026 update estimates reduced immigration policy changes already lowered GDP growth by roughly 0.2–0.3 percentage points in 2025 (scenario-dependent), with additional drag possible in 2026.
Medium term (2–5 years): lower GDP level, mixed wage effects, bigger deficits
Lower GDP level than otherwise. PIIE estimates: deporting 1.3M unauthorized workers → GDP ~1.2% below baseline by 2028;
* deporting ~8.3M unauthorized workers → GDP ~7.4% below baseline by 2028 (a very large hit).
Fiscal costs rise, not fall, in comprehensive budget models once you include enforcement costs plus lost revenue. Penn Wharton’s 2025 analysis estimates:
a 4-year policy (removing 10%/yr for 2025–2028) raises primary deficits about $350B with dynamic effects;
a 10-year policy raises them about $987B with dynamic effects.
Wages are not a simple “Americans win” story. Penn Wharton projects [i]average wages fall overall (and high-skill wages fall over time), while authorized low-skill wages may rise only if deportations are sustained long enough; if policy reverses, even low-skill authorized workers can end up worse off later.
Clearly, our simple-minded president has not thought this through very well.What’s consistently missing from these discussions is any serious consideration of the economic impact of actually enforcing our existing immigration laws.
The U.S. has never stopped issuing legal work visas, and that does not change under Trump. The United States continues to bring in workers legally in agriculture, construction, hospitality, healthcare, seasonal labor, and high-skill fields through established visa programs (H-2A, H-2B, H-1B, L-1, O-visas, etc.), exactly as it has for decades.
If employers truly need workers, there are lawful pathways designed for that purpose, with caps and safeguards set by Congress. Migrants who want to work in the U.S. are not barred from doing so, they are expected to follow U.S. law, just as Americans are expected to do. Enforcing immigration law does not mean “ending immigration”; it means ending illegal labor while continuing legal labor.
Conflating deportations with “shutting off workers” is misleading. The policy choice isn’t no workers vs. illegal workers, it’s legal workers vs. illegal labor markets. And the U.S. already has a system to meet labor demand without undermining wages, the rule of law, or fairness to citizens and legal immigrants.You neglected to mention that it is not business as usual - you need context that was omitted.
Trump has (sources upon request):
* H-1B program now comes with a $100,000 bounty that employers must pay
* H-2A program has been reduced through policy changes
* H-2B program by 50%
* In January 2026, the State Department announced an immigrant visa processing suspension for nationals of 75 countries, while noting nonimmigrant visa processing continues (though with stricter screening).
* Similarly, policy decisions have choked of L-1 and O-1 visas, even though they account for only 0.83%!
Another piece of context missing is that even IF these programs HAD been running at previous decades levels (they aren't), they were never enough to fill labor demand.
Conflating deportations with "shutting off workers" is the opposite of misleading - it is hte truth.
ICE Arrest of a Citizen, Barely Dressed, Sows Fear in Twin Cities
The arrested man was identified as ChongLy Scott Thao, a Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record, according to his family. He was released about an hour later without being charged, they said.
Mr. Thao said the agents did not explain or apologize for the arrest. “They didn’t say sorry or anything,” he said.
MORE
ICE targeted off-duty police officers in Twin Cities, local police say
Local law enforcement leaders in Minneapolis and St. Paul are raising concerns about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents violating U.S. citizens’ civil rights, including those of off-duty police officers, as ICE has surged into Minnesota in recent weeks.
Mark Bruley, police chief of Minneapolis suburb Brooklyn Park, said at a Tuesday news conference that an off-duty police officer had been “boxed … in” by vehicles driven by ICE agents, who demanded with guns drawn to see paperwork proving the officer had a right to be in the United States. “She’s a U.S. citizen, and clearly would not have any paperwork,” he said.
The officer attempted to begin filming the interaction and her phone was knocked out of her hand, Bruley said. When she identified herself as a police officer, the federal agents “immediately left,” he said.
All of the off-duty police officers who had been targeted by ICE in his city were people of color, Bruley said.
“I wish I could tell you that this was an isolated incident,” he said, adding, “if it is happening to our officers, it pains me to think how many of our community members are falling victim to this every day.”
Dawanna Witt, sheriff of Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, said that people were being “stopped, questioned and harassed solely because of the color of their skin” and that the behavior of federal agents was eroding trust in law enforcement.
“We demand lawful policing that respects human dignity,” she said, adding that the surge of ICE agents in Minneapolis was impacting local officers as well as the general community. “We will all continue to show up, even though times are hard, even though our law enforcement is exhausted.”
St. Paul Police Chief Axel Henry said that city employees had been subject to “traffic stops that were clearly outside the bounds of what federal agents are allowed to do.”
Bruley said the news conference was called to draw attention to the conduct of a “small group” of agents who had been deployed over the past two weeks.
“What you won’t hear from any of us today is rhetoric of ‘abolish ICE’ or that there shouldn’t be immigration enforcement,” Bruley said. “The truth is, immigration enforcement is necessary for national security and for local security, but how it’s done is extremely important.”
SOURCEAfter this,
In an interview with The New York Times hours after the shooting, Trump appeared to blame Good for her own death, citing video that he said showed Good was trying to hit Ross with her car.
"She behaved horribly,” Trump told the Times. “And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over. She ran him over.”
His social media post hours after the shooting also claimed Good "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer."
Videos from that day contradict his version of events.
He now says,
"ICE is going to be too rough with somebody, or, you know, they're dealing with rough people," Trump said of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during a lengthy White House press room briefing focused mostly on highlighting the milestones of the first year of his second presidency.
"They're going to make some mistakes sometimes," he said. "It can happen. We feel terribly."
Trump also spoke specifically of Good, who was shot by ICE officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, after Ross and other officers approached her stopped car and she began to drive.
"I felt horribly when I was told that the young woman, who was — had the tragedy," he said, adding that he heard her father was a Trump supporter. "It's a tragedy. It's a horrible thing. Everybody would say it. ICE would say the same thing."
He knows what the numbers show.And Trump apologists wonder why America has such a poor opinion of DHS and Trump.
Autopsy report classifies ICE detainee’s death as a homicide
The report comes the same day a federal judge temporarily barred the deportation of two fellow detainees who said 55-year-old Geraldo Lunas Campos was killed.
The recent death of a detainee at an immigrant detention camp in Texas has been officially deemed a homicide, according to an autopsy report released Wednesday by the El Paso County Office of the Medical Examiner.
“Based on the investigative and examination findings, it is my opinion that the cause of death is asphyxia due to neck and torso compression,” Adam C. Gonzalez, deputy medical examiner for El Paso County, said in the report. “The manner of death is homicide.”
Geraldo Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old Cuban man who was detained at Camp East Montana in El Paso, died during an interaction with guards after being placed into solitary confinement, according to the government. A fellow detainee who said he witnessed the incident claimed Lunas Campos had been asking for his medication.
The autopsy report indicated that Lunas Campos was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had medication for depression in his system. Asphyxia due to neck and torso compression means Lunas Campos did not get enough oxygen because of pressure on his neck and chest, Grossberg said.
Following Lunas Campos’s death on Jan. 3, the Department of Homeland Security initially said “staff observed him in distress” and gave no cause of death. Then, in a recorded conversation last week that was first reported by The Washington Post, an employee of the medical examiner’s office told one of Lunas Campos’s relatives that the office was likely to list the manner of death as homicide.
After that report in The Post, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that Lunas Campos had tried to take his own life and guards were trying to save him. “Campos violently resisted the security staff and continued to attempt to take his life,” McLaughlin said. “During the ensuing struggle, Campos stopped breathing and lost consciousness.”
A fellow detainee, Santos Jesus Flores, said in a phone interview with The Post last week that he saw guards choking Lunas Campos and heard Lunas Campos repeatedly saying, “No puedo respirar” — Spanish for “I can’t breathe.” Medical staff tried to resuscitate him for an hour, after which they took his body away, Flores said.
Deaths in ICE detention centers have occurred with increasing frequency in recent months, as President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown floods these facilities with record numbers of detainees. At least 30 people died in detention last year — the highest in two decades — and Lunas Campos is one of six who died in the first two weeks of 2026 alone, according to ICE, which posts information about all detainee deaths on its website.
LINKICE in Action
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/01 … -paul-vis/"ICE officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says"
As I recall, that is exactly one of the reasons Americans broke away from a despot King back in the 1700s. Well, doesn't it seem like it needs to be done again - hopefully through the ballot box. That said, this is why the second amendment was originally developed, wasn't it.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote "“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” The quickest way to do that for this depot is to impeach him.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/politics … es-warrantAll this verbiage overlooks one simple TRUTH - before Trump, ICE and the local authorities got along famously capturing the worst of the worst in Minnesota.
Then along came Trump with is quota of 3,000 arrests a day and his lie that he needed to send 2,000 federal agents to defeat FRAUD. When he did that, the problems started led by his stormtroopers breaking tons of laws and common decency to meet his stupid quota.Another ICE atrocity - no one hurt, fortunately, but a TWO-year old toddler terrorized for no reason.
"Toddler taken into ICE custody with father and flown from Minnesota to Texas before returned to mother next day, lawyer says"
Like with the 5-year old - is he still in detention in Texas? - the father's "crime" for this so-called "targeted" kidnap was having applied for asylum. Since DHS has not offered proof of another reason, the must be another illegal kidnapping.
"The child’s transfer to Texas took place despite a court order requiring her immediate release, according to the affidavit filed by the family attorney. The toddler’s father, identified as Elvis Tipan-Echeverria, remains in custody, the family’s attorney Kira Kelley told CNN Friday evening."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/24/us/elvis … -minnesotaA 2-year-old girl was taken into ICE custody with her father on Thursday in Minneapolis and flown to Texas before she was returned to her mother Friday afternoon, a family lawyer said.
What was ICE supposed to do? Leave the toddler at the airport? She was reunited with her mother the next day. It's time for the left to tell the truth for once. Try it sometime. The girl was NOT taken into custody. She was with her father, her father was taken into custody, and then the toddler was taken to her mother.
No wonder CNN ratings are so incredibly low.
DHS officials debunk viral claims ICE used 5-year-old boy as ‘bait’ — here’s what they say really happened
Top Homeland Security officials hit back Friday at viral claims that a 5-year-old boy was arrested and then used a “bait” for ICE to detain his mom in Minnesota earlier this week.
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) head Marcos Charles said that the little boy, identified as preschooler Liam Conejo Ramos, was abandoned in a car by his illegal migrant father as federal officers attempted to arrest the parent Tuesday as part of a targeted operation in the city of Columbia Heights.
Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias fled ICE on foot, leaving his son behind, the ICE official said, stressing the child was not the target — after a flurry of criticism from anti-ICE activists and Democrats.
As officers rushed to apprehend Arias, an officer stayed with the child, whom ICE attempted to reunite with other family members when they knocked on the boy’s home.
“The people refused to take him in and open the door,” Charles said.
“Let me say it again, they saw the young boy and refused to open the door and take him back … I know for a fact [officers] were heartbroken to see the child’s own family leave him behind.”
Charles noted the agents cared for the child for hours and got him a meal from a drive-in restaurant.
DHS officials said Arias, an Ecuadorian national, was in the country illegally after he was released by the Biden administration – an assertion disputed by a family lawyer.
DHS’s strong rebuttal on Friday came after a photo shot across the internet –- and outrage soon followed — showing Liam standing next to a police vehicle in a winter hat and with a Spiderman backpack on.
Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stevik claimed this week that ICE asked the child to knock on the door and was “essentially using a 5-year-old as bait” when officers approached the house.
The local school chief also said the father told the child’s mother not to open the door and claimed agents wouldn’t leave the child with another adult who lives at the school and a school district official.
(Why would they leave a child with just any adult? That isn't legal.)
https://nypost.com/2026/01/23/us-news/d … -happened/
Again, as I've always said. Facts, truth, and reality are a liberals worst enemy. This is just one small example.Thanks for sharing the facts. I was planning to post them myself, but, well, you know how it goes. Illegal migrants really need to think about their children before choosing to break immigration laws and consider the consequences those kids might face if their parents are arrested or deported. It’s heartbreaking for children who end up paying the price for their parents’ irresponsible choices.
Why are you being ridiculous - what is ICE supposed to do? Really! ICE could have obeyed the federal judges order not to remove her. ICE could have not RUSHED to move them hours after accosting them. ICE could have followed procedure and found state or local family services or other legal guardians to leave her with. There are a multitude of things ICE could have - should have - done other than rush her off to a cage in Texas.
She was reunited with her mother the next day. Yes, after forcing her on two long, UNNESCISSARY plane trips (I wonder if she was cuffed with her father) in DEFIANCE of a court order which they received BEFORE they hurried them unto a plane. That seems naive to me.
DHS officials cannot debunk anything - their veracity has dropped to zero after having been caught in so many lies.
You should know by now, if something DHS isn't corroborated by other sources, it is not to be believed.
Here is what is known about the ICE abduction of the 5 year-old and his father. Understand that the preponderance of the evidence points to DHS making stuff up to put a positive spin on it. Consequently, unless corroborated, I must assume they lie.
I had ChatGPT develop this for me after a lengthy Q & A although I did insert some edits..
"On January 20, 2026, federal immigration agents detained Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias (Ecuador) had returned home from picking up his 5-year-old son, Liam Conejo Ramos, from preschool in the Minneapolis-area. DHS claims this was a targeted enforcement action, but until they provide proof, it must be assumed it was for nefarious reasons. The eye-witness accounts from a school official who happened on the scene say that ICE took the boy to the front door and told him to knock . Given ICE's past history, it must be presumed it was to lure his mother and others out - they used the boy as bait according to the school official. Witnesses also report the father was yelling for the mother not to open the door—suggesting fear that opening the door could expose others inside or escalate the situation.
Ramos, his son (and probably his wife) were in the US LEGALLY, according to his lawyers, having properly applied for asylum at the border. The family’s lawyer, Marc Prokosch, has said Conejo Arias and his son entered in 2024 at the Brownsville, Texas port of entry, using the CBP One process to declare intent to seek asylum and obtain an appointment.
He was given a work visa which apparently is still valid since no evidence to the contrary has been presented. Also, no evidence has been offered to show he had committed a violent crime - the ONLY reason DHS says they "target" someone - so his detention is extremely suspect.
What is not supported by the facts: 1) Ramos running away, 2) Ramos leaving his child in a running car, and 3) Ramos was a criminal illegal alien.
As of the latest reporting (Jan. 23–24), 5-year-old Liam is still being held in a cage in Texas"
It can fairly be concluded, in my opinion, that ICE broke the law again.Trump cites armed suspect, lack of police support following fatal Border Patrol shooting in Minneapolis
Armed Minneapolis resident killed by Border Patrol agent
"President Donald Trump sounded off on Truth Social after a Border Patrol agent fatally shot an armed man in Minneapolis on Saturday, claiming federal agents "had to protect themselves" because of the lack of support from local police in the blue city.
The 37-year-old man, a U.S. citizen from Minneapolis, allegedly approached agents and then "violently resisted," while armed with a 9mm pistol and two magazines.
"This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go—What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers?" Trump wrote in the post. "The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves—Not an easy thing to do!"
The president also called out Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., questioning her finances amid a federal fraud investigation.
"Why does Ilhan Omar have $34 Million Dollars in her account? And where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen from the once Great State of Minnesota?" Trump wrote. "We are there because of massive Monetary Fraud, with Billions of Dollars missing, and Illegal Criminals that were allowed to infiltrate the State through the Democrats’ Open Border Policy. We want the money back, and we want it back, NOW.
"Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong! This is no different than a really big Bank Robbery. Much of what you’re witnessing is a COVER UP for this Theft and Fraud."
Trump then accused Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of "inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric!"
"Instead, these sanctimonious political fools should be looking for the Billions of Dollars that has been stolen from the people of Minnesota, and the United States of America," he wrote. "LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB! 12,000 Illegal Alien Criminals, many of them violent, have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota. If they were still there, you would see something far worse than you are witnessing today!"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … inneapolis
Hopefully, Trump sends in the military. It's time to stop these insurrectionists. This is America, we have laws, and the president needs to enforce our laws.Right now Minneapolis is in real turmoil after multiple shootings involving federal law enforcement agents, including one as recent as today, during a series of immigration enforcement operations that have sparked large protests and widespread tension across the city. Thousands of people have marched, cities have literally shut down for an “ICE out of Minnesota” economic protest, and civic life has been deeply disrupted.
I fully support the right of Americans to peaceably protest federal policies or actions they disagree with; that’s absolutely part of our First Amendment. But those same protections do not give anyone the right to impede federal officers from carrying out enforcement of federal law, including officers from ICE, Border Patrol, or other federal agencies acting under authority granted by Congress. Federal law enforcement officers are legally empowered to execute federal duties, and it is unlawful for protesters or anyone else to block, obstruct, or interfere with them while they’re doing that job.
What’s been especially concerning is that state and local officials, including the Governor, have publicly called for federal ICE agents to leave the state, effectively encouraging continued resistance to federal operations instead of supporting legal channels to address disputes. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes it clear that federal law takes precedence over state law, and refusing to acknowledge that undermines the rule of law.
We are now at a point where rhetoric from state leadership against federal enforcement has fueled unrest and emboldened protesters to take actions that, in many cases, cross from peaceful dissent into obstruction. If leaders genuinely want to protect order and public safety, they must emphasize respect for lawful protest and respect for the enforcement of federal law, not encourage people to block it. The President should step in decisively to restore respect for the rule of law, clarify the limits of lawful protest, and ensure that public safety and constitutional order are upheld.
I don't want social posts from the president --- I want action be brought to bear on the lawlessness that I clearly am witnessing.Sounds like Minneapolis is becoming like Somalia.
Good one---- and also becoming Portland – prolonged unrest, open-air drug use, weak enforcement, and visible institutional paralysis.
San Francisco – homelessness, organized retail theft, drug markets, and selective law enforcement creating de facto zones of disorder.
Chicago (certain areas) – chronic violent crime, low clearance rates, and communities functioning with little trust in state protection.
Seattle – CHOP/CHAZ was a textbook example of temporary parallel governance and loss of state control.
Los Angeles – Shit hole---
Note what they all have in common. BingoAll those are examples of letting the Gestapo invade our cities FOR NO REASON.
Sounds like Minneapolis is becoming like the beginning of our revolution with patriots standing up to the King.
Any true American Patriot is supporting the "king"
Those supporting anarchy or Anti-American sentiments support the criminal rioters and violent attackers of federal law enforcers.... or to put it aptly, they are Democrats.
Democrats today are un-American, un-Patriotic, and often outright evil people, or dupes doing evil on behalf of those who are. Democrats do not care about the nation, nor our citizens, nor our freedoms... they are enemies of all those things.
Somali Immigrant Has a Chilling Warning for the West | Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjTgFomlzsAIn America, the “patriot” doesn’t back a king. Patriots back the Constitution—meaning due process, accountable government, and equal protection. If you’re cheering “the king” because he’s your king, that’s not patriotism. That’s monarchy cosplay.
You don’t get to launder violence as patriotism. If someone assaulted an officer, charge them. If officers shot someone unjustifiably, investigate and charge them. The rule is the same no matter whose team jersey you’re wearing.
“Democrats are evil” is not an argument—it’s a confession of tribalism. Half the country is not your enemy. That kind of talk is how you justify anything, including the very authoritarianism you claim to oppose.
Supporting oversight isn’t “anarchy.” Wanting warrants, clear rules, and accountability for federal power is literally the American tradition. It’s also the only way to keep the government legitimate.
So no: this isn’t 1776. In 1776 people rejected kings. Today you’re asking Americans to pick one—and calling everyone else “evil” when they won’t. That’s the opposite of patriotism.Why are you thanking some one who wrongly believes that patriotism = authoritarianism?
Might makes Right. The Ends Justify the Means. Brown people are murderers and rapists. Laws and the Constitution are obstacles That is when when America is Great Again.
Before Trump and during Biden it was equality, fair play, inclusion, diversity, Rule of Law, follow the Constitution, liberty, justice for all.
You are describing your side - that is called projection.
Let me remind you that you are fine with your president being a convicted felon and sexual predator. That proves you aren't serious about anybody else's criminal activity.Why are the MAGA on here defending Trump from being called a convicted felon? Do they agree that he is and just don't care?
Trump is clearly the insurrectionist, not the people protesting these murders by DHS.
Trump has turned Minneapolis into a Killing Field - DHS has murdered their second American
What we know so far
• Deadly shooting: Video appears to show a federal officer had taken a gun away from a Minneapolis man prior to a Border Patrol agent fatally shooting him today."
One of the few truths DHS said was that the victim was "armed". Yes he was, which was his right according to the second amendment and state law. But now watch the Trump apologists start arguing against the 2nd Amendment.
It is clear that DHS are the "domestic terrorists".Come on Trump, send in the Army...
"Anti-ICE agitator allegedly bites off federal officer's finger during Minneapolis attack
Homeland Security official shares graphic photos as Minnesota National Guard troops mobilized following escalating violence.
Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin shared a photo on social media Saturday of a federal law enforcement officer's severed finger after an anti-ICE agitator in Minneapolis allegedly bit it off.
"In Minneapolis, these rioters attacked our law enforcement officer and one of them bit off our HSI officer’s finger," McLaughlin wrote in the post. "He will lose his finger."
She shared photos of two people seemingly in custody, though it is unclear which person is the alleged biter.
Hours before McLaughlin's post, a Border Patrol agent was seen on video fatally shooting an armed man in Minneapolis amid a crowd of agitators.
The 37-year-old man, a U.S. citizen from Minneapolis, allegedly approached agents and then "violently resisted," while armed with a 9mm pistol and two magazines, according to Homeland Security officials.
Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino said during a news conference on Saturday it "look[ed] like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement."
"About 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement," Bovino said. "We will not allow violence against our law enforcement officers, and we need state and local help. … [Minneapolis] Mayor [Jacob] Frey and [Minneapolis Police Department] Chief Brian O'Hara, just a few minutes ago, did the opposite of that by omitting the fact that the suspect had a gun and magazines full of ammunition."
The Minnesota National Guard confirmed on Saturday that in addition to troops previously mobilized at the direction of Gov. Tim Walz, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office requested additional support and more soldiers will be brought in.
Guardsmen will provide security at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, and assist the Minnesota State Patrol, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other local agencies, if requested."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-agi … lis-attack
Fake Fox News again, I see. Why are you spreading DHS lies?
"Anti-ICE agitator allegedly bites off federal officer's finger during Minneapolis attack" - Uncorroborated, probably made up.
""In Minneapolis, these rioters attacked our law enforcement officer and one of them bit off our HSI officer’s finger," McLaughlin wrote in the post. "He will lose his finger."" - There were no "rioters", only protestors.
"The 37-year-old man, a U.S. citizen from Minneapolis, allegedly approached agents and then "violently resisted," while armed with a 9mm pistol and two magazines, according to Homeland Security officials." - PURE LIES - see videos
"Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino said during a news conference on Saturday it "look[ed] like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement." - PURE LIES, videos - He needs to be fired.
""About 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement," Bovino said. " - PURE LIE, there were no rioters, according to the videos. Bovino needs to be fired.They keep lying, I guess for their MAGAmorons. The rest of the world have eyes and brains.
I didn't realize Trump got another patriotic FBI agent to resign after her correct decision to investigate Good's shooter was overturned by the politicians protecting their ass.
DHS Murders Pretti!!!
"Videos appear to show federal officer took gun from Alex Pretti just before fatal shooting, CNN analysis finds"
"A CNN analysis of video appears to show a federal immigration officer removing a gun from Alex Pretti just prior to officers fatally shooting him.
Video shows one officer reaching into the scrum of other officers seeking to restrain Pretti and retrieving a weapon that appears to match the firearm the Department of Homeland Security says Pretti possessed.
Officers can be heard shouting “he’s got a gun” when the unidentified officer reaches into Pretti’s waistband as the pile of officers try to subdue him. Just over one second after the officer emerges holding the weapon, a shot rings out, followed by at least 9 more, according to videos.
The videos show that the officer who retrieved the weapon had nothing in his hand prior to approaching Pretti. It is unclear from the videos reviewed by CNN whether the officer who took the weapon from Pretti told the others once he had taken it away. It is also unclear which agent first fired at Pretti.
In a statement, DHS claimed that an officer fired on Pretti, 37, while fearing for his life: “The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted…Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots.” THAT IS A BALD-FACED LIE
At no point in any of the videos reviewed by CNN can Pretti be seen wielding a weapon; he is seen carrying a cellphone in one hand earlier in the encounter.
The Minneapolis police chief said Pretti was believed to be a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry."[
THIS WAS MURDER
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ice-mi … 6r8mz0pzxtI just did some research and discovered a terrible truth - In America a federal official can commit murder, such as with Pretti, and so long as there is a Corrupt DOIJ and president that we currently have, they can get away with it. Minnesota can't do a damn thing about it.
What was it that Vance said, “total immunity”? In my world, no one is entitled to total immunity and not being held accountable.
It is effectively total immunity IF you have a corrupt DOIJ like we do today.
"Minneapolis pediatrician faults federal agents for not starting CPR on Alex Pretti in new court filing"
From CNN's Laura Sharman
"A Minneapolis pediatrician described watching a man – later identified as Alex Pretti – be shot by a federal agent on Saturday and criticized the federal officers at the scene for not checking the man’s pulse or beginning to perform CPR, according to a new filing in a lawsuit against the Trump administration brought by protesters in December.
“Checking for a pulse and administering CPR is standard practice. Instead of doing either of those things, the (federal immigration) agents appeared to be counting his bullet wounds,” a 29-year-old Minneapolis resident who says they are a licensed pediatrician said in a sworn declaration filed Saturday.
The pediatrician reported witnessing the shooting from the window of their apartment and described seeing federal agents shove a man who appeared to be unarmed to the ground and point their guns at him before shots were fired.
[b/“Initially, I was stunned. From what I could see from my apartment, there was absolutely no need for any violence, let alone lethal force by multiple officers,” the pediatrician said.[/b]
The Department of Homeland Security said earlier that Border Patrol officers attempted to disarm an armed man who had approached them, and an agent fired defensive shots when the man “violently resisted.” Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino claimed the man was trying to “massacre law enforcement.” BOVINO TOLD A BOLD-FACED LIE [/i]
After hurrying to the scene, the pediatrician said they were a doctor and asked federal agents to let them assess the man. The pediatrician said agents first asked for a physician’s license, but an agent eventually allowed access to the man.
The pediatrician said they saw the man surrounded by several federal agents with “at least three bullet wounds in his back” and was confused to see the man lying on his side because “that is not standard practice” for a person who has been shot.
When the man was turned onto his back, the pediatrician said they saw a gunshot wound to his chest and another to his neck. They found no pulse, and immediately began CPR until emergency services arrived.
“I do not feel safe in my city,” the pediatrician added, according to the filing. “In less than one month, ICE agents have shot and killed two people for protesting and observing their actions. I worry that I or someone I love will be shot and killed for voicing their displeasure and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
CNN has reached out to lawyers for the witnesses and DHS for comment on the new filings.Let's have a look at some of the crimes illegal immigrants are committing. Makes one wonder why there are no protests to bring these crimes into the light of day.
A New Jersey man accused of injuring a young girl by throwing a baseball-sized rock at a school bus is in the country illegally, according to federal officials.
Hernando Garcia-Morales, 40, of Palisades Park, faces multiple charges in connection with a Jan. 7 motor vehicle incident on the northbound New Jersey Turnpike, the New Jersey State Police said.
The third-grade children were traveling back to Yeshivat Noam Jewish day school in Paramus after a class trip to the Liberty Science Center when a large rock smashed through the bus window, the school previously told Fox News Digital. An 8-year-old girl suffered a skull fracture after being struck by the rock and was forced to have surgery, officials said.
Department also charged him with aggravated assault, criminal trespassing defiant, criminal trespassing peering, and criminal mischief damage property.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Saturday that U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) has issued an arrest detainer against Hernando Garcia-Morales, claiming he is a criminal illegal immigrant from Mexico.
DHS told Fox News Digital that Garcia-Morales has a history of violence and is in the country illegally, but said he has not been deported because of New Jersey’s sanctuary immigration policies.
"Violently targeting a school bus full of children is extremely wicked and heinous," DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. "Hernando Garcia-Morales should have never been in this country, let alone released after multiple arrests into New Jersey communities."
Illegal Immigrants
College soccer star, girlfriend dead as illegal immigrant’s record ignites lawmaker fury statewide
Juan Alvarado Aguilar faces felony charges in crash that killed Fletcher Harris and Skylar Provenza in North Carolina
Lawmakers are voicing outrage as family and friends mourn a college soccer player and his girlfriend who were killed in a DUI crash allegedly caused by an illegal immigrant.
The case is reigniting debate over immigration enforcement and whether failures in the system contributed to the deaths of Fletcher Harris, 20, and Skylar Provenza, 19.
Prosecutors say Juan Alvarado Aguilar, 37, was driving under the influence when his vehicle slammed into the couple's car on Friday, Jan. 16, killing them both and devastating their families and community. As mourners gather to say goodbye to Provenza and Harris, whose funeral was held Thursday, lawmakers are pointing to Aguilar’s immigration status and alleged criminal history as evidence of broader public safety failures they say demand immediate action.
"Fletcher Harris and Skylar Provenza—two bright young lives full of promise—were brutally taken in a head-on crash allegedly caused by an illegal alien with a prior DUI who never should have been on our roads," Harris said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "This is the deadly cost of North Carolina’s sanctuary policies and radical Democrat refusal to enforce the law."
Harris also questioned the lack of public response, suggesting the reaction would be far different in other cases.
"Where’s the outrage? Where are the protests? If this were any other tragedy, the streets would be filled—but when criminal aliens kill Americans, the silence from the Left is deafening."
Types of Crimes Documented in Arrests of Illegal Migrants (2025)
Violent Crimes
Murder / Homicide — arrests of individuals convicted of or charged with killing others, including cases like a fatal hit-and-run death of a 15-year-old.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/opera … hatgpt.com
Sexual assault / rape — arrests of migrants convicted of sexual violence, including rape or sexual abuse of children.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026 … Kidnapping / human trafficking — at least one case implicated alleged kidnapping and sexual assault.
Aggravated assault / battery — included in multiple local ICE enforcement operations.
https://www.aol.com/news/illegal-immigr … BW0_nWsR0y
Sex Crimes (often against minors)
Child sex offenses — arrests for lewd or lascivious acts with minors, convictions for sexual assault on children, and similar sex crimes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UsaNewsLive/co … hatgpt.com
Sex trafficking / exploitation — part of some coordinated federal and local enforcement sweeps.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026 … hatgpt.com
Property Crimes
Burglary / larceny — noted in California enforcement operations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UsaNewsLive/co … hatgpt.com
Domestic violence/assault on family members — charged in some targeted operations.
Traffic and DUI Offenses
https://www.reddit.com/r/UsaNewsLive/co … hatgpt.com
Driving under the influence (DUI) — appeared repeatedly in public reports of arrests nationwide.
Hit-and-run / reckless driving — as in specific criminal arrests.
Drug and Gun Offenses
Drug trafficking and distribution — arrests and convictions for drug distribution offenses, including large-scale trafficking.
https://www.wbrc.com/2025/09/29/4-illeg … hatgpt.com
Weapons offenses — including illegal firearm possession by non-citizens in connection with drug crimes.
Gang and Organized Crime Associations
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatTrumpHasDo … hatgpt.com
Gang involvement — in some enforcement operations, individuals linked to gangs or organized crime were detained.
Other Criminal Issues
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatTrumpHasDo … hatgpt.com
Registered sex offenders — targeted in some state or federal enforcement campaigns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UsaNewsLive/co … hatgpt.com
Domestic abuse/assault — documented in local ICE reports.
Violating protective orders — included among offenses in local enforcement.Rather than cherry picking, what are the crimes that US citizens and legal immigrants commit?
You missed the point I clearly stated in my first paragraph. This is not a comparison about whether Americans commit more crimes. That argument diverts from the issue entirely. My point is that some people will openly protest over the killing of a protester, yet remain silent when an American citizen is killed by someone who is in this country illegally. That selective outrage is what I am calling out.
I keep hearing the phrase, “Rather than cherry picking, what are the crimes that U.S. citizens and legal immigrants commit?” and I think that question itself exposes a moral failure. Of course U.S. citizens and legal immigrants commit crimes, no serious person denies that. Statistically, U.S. citizens commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime in this country simply because they make up the overwhelming majority of the population. That’s basic math, not a revelation.
But here’s what’s missing from that statement: moral responsibility and lawful presence matter. When a U.S. citizen commits a crime, that person is violating criminal law, and the state already has full authority to prosecute, imprison, or execute that sentence. When a legal immigrant commits a crime, they have violated criminal law and risk losing the privilege they were lawfully granted. There are consequences tied to status.
What makes crimes committed by someone in the country illegally different is not race, background, or poverty, it’s the fact that the crime would not have occurred here at all if the law had been enforced in the first place. That is the moral distinction people deliberately avoid. Saying “Americans commit crimes too” does not erase the government’s responsibility to prevent avoidable harm to its own citizens.
Using math honestly actually strengthens this point, not weakens it. Even if illegal migrants commit crimes at lower per-capita rates, which some datasets suggest, any number above zero represents crimes that were preventable by enforcing immigration law. Citizens’ crimes are tragic but unavoidable in a free society. Crimes committed by people who were never supposed to be here are the result of policy failure.
So when people deflect to “U.S. citizens commit crimes too,” I hear an attempt to neutralize accountability rather than confront it. It’s not cherry-picking to acknowledge that preventable deaths carry a different moral weight. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens. Ignoring that distinction isn’t compassion, it’s abdication.There is a difference, Sharlee
These are law enforcement officers involved, not just civilians committing homicide among themselves. What does it matter whether an American citizen is killed by an illegal or another American citizen, the latter which is far more likely?
I have a right to expect a greater level of care and discernment from law enforcement officers. I expect more scrutiny when they are involved and they should expect it as well.Again, this is being diverted. My point is simple: why have we seen no protests or outrage over illegal immigrants committing heinous crimes? I’m not sure how much clearer I can be in trying to get the conversation back to my subject. It seems you’re trying to steer away from it with a diversion.
To be polite, I will reply to your diversion. I have the right to support officers taking actions to protect themselves while doing their job. That’s the law. I don’t pick and choose which ones I support. I also have the right to demand that laws be followed by everyone. The left looks very hypocritical, for example, we saw an officer shoot an unarmed woman at the Capitol protest. She wasn’t near the officer, wasn’t armed, and only her shoulders were through a window. His defense was that he felt threatened.
Just as we are seeing with ICE agents, yesterday, an ICE agent had his finger badly bitten while doing his job. I see what’s going on in Minnesota as a clear case of insurrection, from the governor to those on the streets protesting ICE doing their job. It is my hope that Trump has the balls to send in the army and call it what it is. An insurrection.“The left looks very hypocritical, for example, we saw an officer shoot an unarmed woman at the Capitol protest. She wasn’t near the officer, wasn’t armed, and only her shoulders were through a window. His defense was that he felt threatened.”
Oh really? Let’s see the official version without the standard right wing bias, shall we?
The fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt by a U.S. Capitol Police officer on January 6, 2021, was found to be lawful by federal prosecutors and an internal investigation, concluding it was not unjustified. Officials determined the officer acted in defense of Congress members and staff from a mob, making the use of force reasonable.
Investigation Findings: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Capitol Police cleared Lieutenant Michael Byrd of wrongdoing, finding no evidence to support criminal charges.
Context of the Incident: Babbitt was part of a crowd attempting to force entry into the Speaker's Lobby through a barricaded door, which was leading to a secure area where members of Congress were being evacuated.
Justification: Authorities stated the officer was acting within policy to protect human life from immediate danger.
Controversy: The shooting remains a subject of intense political debate, with some supporters characterizing her death as a wrongful homicide, while others, including the officer involved, argue it was necessary to save lives.
The officer was cleared of all internal charges and was not prosecuted.
=============
Those shootings in Minnesota will need to be justified under a similar standard of life threatening necessity. They had better….
There cannot be anything more dangerous than a rabble rousing right wing crowd.
I remember when you felt that all those American flag waiving, country loving protestors who didn't believe we had a fair election back in Jan 2020 you called insurrectionists, traitors to the country, etc.
Some fool announcer on MSNBC even said they should all be shot for treason or some such nonsense.
In this case, these people are insurrectionists interfering with the lawful execution of federal law... this is not about an election... this is about getting criminals out of our country that don't belong here.
So... this falls under the FAFO laws of action and reaction... I have NO sympathy for those trying to protect criminals from being brought to justice, and I think the military should be deployed in far greater numbers and handle things with far greater force, just like in the 60s when Governors in the South thought they were above the law and could ignore the President.Being defined as an insurrectionist has to have more meaning than just a label to justify lethal force by law enforcement officers. They have to prove that either a weapon was involved or there was imminent danger to themselves, not just executing people merely because they were inconvenient.
Trump’s Brown Shirts…..What changed, and when? Because for sure those rules were not in place Jan 6 - all it took then for the label to be applied was that it was going to hurt Trump.
But yea, first we had rocks in snowballs and fireworks. Then a car for a weapon. Now a gun. Unlike Jan 6, there have been lots of weapons used in this insurrection of people fighting legal LEO's.I don’t believe any of the right wing reports because most of them are lies.
I want an impartial evaluation of each instance to determine the truth, and that is not likely to come from the Trump administration.The truth is, these protesters are true insurrectionists. By every definition. Lethal force can be legally used by federal law enforcement or the military during an insurrection, but only under very specific and limited conditions. An insurrection designation does not create a blanket authorization to use deadly force. Trump needs to stand behind Federal law enforcement, and stop just calling those an insurrection, but title it and insurection and send in the military.
Lethal force can be legally used by federal law enforcement or the military during an insurrection, but only under very specific and limited conditions
—————
Does those specific and limited conditions include executing a man that did not threaten law enforcement, such that he deserved to be shot?
Also, whether they are “true insurrectionists” remain to be seen. What do we call the rabble attacking the capitol building in Washington 1/6/21?MAGA and Trump calls those insurrectionists, patriots.
They show they have no clue what they are talking about when they declare people peacefully protesting insurrectionists.
It also dawned on me that those five poor, defenseless goons piled on top of Prettie are so incompetent that they couldn't keep the hero from getting to his hands (devoid of a gun) and knees.
So, if you opposed DHS killing Americans, you should be a good soviet citizen and keep your mouth shut. Sorry, but that is not the way it works in America where we actually have free speech.
Fact -- and it's important that facts be displayed as Congress and our Constitution provide them, not how chat users define them.... Facts are available to all online. Facts, as a rule, don't change unless Congress or our high court makes changes.
Yes, by the strict legal definition, what we’re seeing in Minnesota is classified as an insurrection. The U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 2383) defines insurrection as “inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” If protesters are actively obstructing federal agents, like ICE officers, from enforcing federal immigration laws, and if state leaders are encouraging or supporting this, it meets the criteria for attempting to impede the execution of federal law.
It’s important to note that whether charges are actually filed and prosecuted is a separate matter, but from a definitional standpoint, obstruction combined with encouragement from public officials is legally qualified as insurrection.
I will be very angry if the president does not uphold our laws and send in the army to stop this insurrection in Minn.
This is BS.Admit the MAGA who ransacked the Capitol were insurrectionists.
How can a president who breaks the law almost daily and is a convicted felon and an adjudicated sexual predator uphold any law. It simply is not in his DNA.
Sharlee, I do not differentiate between citizens and migrants committing crimes. While migrants are illegal here, focusing on criminality is not a real reason to single them out.
What! They are singled out due to breaking the very law by not leaving once they have been told to. Do you believe in following our laws, or picking which laws you find unacceptable? They are singled out due to being in the country illegally
Murder is murder, Sharlee, my point is emphasis on criminal behavior is an excuse. There are simply better reasons to remove migrants, but painting them all with a broad brush as criminals is not one of them.
I wonder why she doesn't understand - They don't have to leave when told to do so if they are exercising their constitutional rights and they are not physically interfering with what ICE is doing. But is seems in MAGA world simply annoying DHS is a death sentence.
And until she admits that Trump is a convicted felon and should be in jail, then no one can take her phony concern seriously about the much lesser crime of having crossed the border between ports of entry doesn't mean much to me because of the total hypocrisy.
It is as simple as that.In my view, the situation with illegal migrants can be seen in broad terms. Whether or not they have committed other crimes is irrelevant; if they remain in the country after a judge has ordered them to leave, they have already broken the law simply by failing to comply with that order.
So, if I understand your thinking, you’re weighing the seriousness of different laws. We have laws in place and punishments that correspond to the crimes, all determined through the due process of our courts. When someone in this country illegally breaks one of our laws, they still receive due process and are subject to court-appointed penalties. Similarly, when an immigration court determines that an undocumented person has no legal basis to stay and orders them to leave, they should comply. Laws exist for a reason. In my view, they are not meant to be assigned a value and then ignored when inconvenient.There is one problem - you assume most, if not all, of those DHS is picking up have an order of removal. The truth is, only a small percentage of those harassed by DHS fall in that category. Further, DHS knows who those people are.
What is happening, as can be seen on video, is DHS is stopping and harassing way more than have order's of removal. In fact, ICE and local officials were doing a very good job of finding and deporting those types of people you are talking about BEFORE Trump invaded the city - 1,800 by one report from Jan to Oct.
The truth is “Operation Metro Surge” isn’t limited to that cohort. DHS itself has been citing roughly 3,000 arrests over about six weeks, while civil-rights litigation in Minnesota alleges suspicionless stops and other encounters that don’t show up in arrest counts at all. So even if you accept the final-order cases, which is reasonable to accept, it doesn’t describe—let alone justify—the much larger pool of people who were stopped, questioned, delayed, or intimidated without being removal-order fugitives. Those are the people that ALL other administrations, including Trump's first and Obama, who deported the most people didn't bother with.
It also must be pointed out that Obama, who deported more people than Trump has any hope to deport, didn't without killing innocent Americans are causing a nationwide panic like Trump is currently doing.As for your first paragraph, I agree. But unless they poses a lethal threat to law enforcement or others around them, they should be subdued without the mayhem of shootings and body counts. You don’t shoot jaywalkers…..
I agree with your thoughts. But the problem starts when protesters show up at arrest sites, as they did immediately last weekend, at the shooting in Minneapolis. What I have come to question is legality. Do protesters have the right to protest law enforcement while officers are carrying out their duties? It’s clear they have the right to free speech and the right to protest, but do they have the right to protest laws being enforced in real time? What I have found---
Protesters do have the right to protest law enforcement, including criticizing arrests, policing tactics, or the laws themselves. That right comes from the First Amendment, free speech, and peaceful assembly.
However, that right is not unlimited, especially at active arrest scenes.
Protesters do not have the right to:
Interfere with an arrest in progress
Block officers, suspects, or emergency vehicles
Ignore lawful orders to disperse or move back
Create conditions that endanger officers, suspects, or bystanders
From what I have seen, many protesters are doing all of the above—not all, but enough are clearly overstepping their rights. As a citizen, I believe illegal migrants should be removed, for many reasons. I also understand, or at least believe I understand, that there are citizens who want illegal migrants left alone and allowed to remain in the country, undeterred by existing laws. To me, that position runs directly counter to our Constitution and the rule of law.
If people are actively ignoring or obstructing federal immigration laws, then that is a violation of the Constitution’s framework, not the free speech part, but the part that gives the federal government the authority to enforce the law.
This issue is being overlooked.I agree with your thoughts. But the problem starts when protesters show up at arrest sites, as they did immediately last weekend, at the shooting in Minneapolis. What I have come to question is legality. Do protesters have the right to protest law enforcement while officers are carrying out their duties? It’s clear they have the right to free speech and the right to protest, but do they have the right to protest laws being enforced in real time? What I have found---
———
Well, I think that depends on what that “protest” entails. Protesters cannot interfere or impede arrests and probably should be required to stay a mandated distance from the arresting officer and perpetrator. But, that cannot be an excuse to consider a protest with either cell camera, pickets or loud voices, illegal interference. What is the basis of having a protest group disperse if they are neither violent or impeding the law officer in his or her duty? Your exceptions make for a broad brush and I would feel more comfortable if your exceptions are more narrow as it gives law enforcement and excuse to harass and arrest anyone who so much as gives them “the finger”. The First Amendment still applies.
Those who are found to be here illegally should be arrested and should be subject to a legal process that may well end up with his or her being deported. I may have to submit to federal authority to enforce the law, but that does not mean that I cannot protest the manner and methods without violence or impeding the officers. From my point of view, the right wants to silence all dissent and consider those that protest Trumps policies as guilty as the migrants that are arrested.
Here is more
I don’t like the idea that ICE can obtain warrants to enter a private property based on its own administration rather than by a certified judge
I don’t the idea federal agencies cannot be held liable and sued for blatant errors and injustice against a perpetrator.
I don’t like the idea that Trump rescinded a previous executive order requiring federal officers to have operational body cams. Why would you suppose that he would do that? Out of sight, out of mind?
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/27/what-l … -with-ice/It is my understanding that those ICE warrants are ONLY for people with an active deportation order. There is thus no need for a judge to determine if there is reason to search for the person.
Cameras: Perhaps there were not enough for the number of agents surged into Minneapolis?
A separate issue: Trump was charged with insurrection because 1) he told protesters to "march peacefully" and 2)while armed only with a flagpole and a fire extinguisher they disobeyed him and broke into the capital.
We now have tens of thousands of rioters being told by Walz and Frey to fight in the streets against federal LEO's. To "put their lives on the line" in that fight. To do everything they can to obstruct federal LEO's as they do their job. They have used rocks, cars, guns, frozen water bottles (that broke windshields!), and fireworks as weapons, any of which could be deadly. Are those two (and any that join them in their calls for violence) not guilty of insurrection?That is not how Jack Smith saw. He was certain he had enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was guilty. That is why he indicted him. Same for the classified records case.
We all know the rest of your 10,000 rioters is pure hyperbole and totally unsubstantiated.And I'm sure you "saw" exactly the same as Smith did.
Problem is that no one else does. A few will lie and say they did, but that's about it.
I have a hard time accepting that attitude. If someone flees their sentence from a DUI here in Brazil and does the same thing in the US they should be released back into the community if they commit a DUI in the US? Why do those sanctuary cities release them back into their cities instead of sending them back to face their punishment in their home country?
If a migrant commits a crime here, of course he or she should be jailed and/or deported if here illegally through (due process of law).
I have to look into whether sanctuary cities actually conceal crimes committed by migrants and what they have to gain by sheltering them.In case you didn't get a chance yet, I did. As expected, the claim is a total fabrication
Oh, you might want to look into the Somali scammers that were released back into Minnesota, the child molestor that was released back into Boston, numerous DUI offendors that were released back into California, and it goes on and on.
Just because you lie and say that it does not happen we are expected to believe you? You rely on AI a lot but why not let them point out some cases for you? Are you afraid they are going to tell you the truth?
here is one example: Case of a convicted body-concealing suspect after court release
Federal authorities reported that Luis Mendoza-Gonzalez, a 52-year-old illegal alien from Mexico charged with concealing the body of a missing woman, had previously been freed into the community by a judge in Chicago instead of being detained for ICE custody. ICE later arrested him outside the jail.You implied that was the policy of sanctuary cities. It is not.
It is. That is not going to appear on CNN so you are probably ignorant of the fact.
The protesters you’re referring to are objecting to ICE carrying out immigration arrests and enforcement operations, not just generalized law enforcement. Many demonstrators have been demanding that the federal government scale back or stop these operations, particularly after clashes and fatal shootings by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis that have drawn national attention.
But in our legal system, immigration policy and enforcement are determined by federal law, not by protesters. ICE is a federal agency charged with enforcing immigration statutes passed by Congress, and if someone is in the country unlawfully and ordered to leave by an immigration judge, they are legally required to comply with that order, and federal agents are authorized to take action when those orders aren’t followed.
Protests and demonstrations are part of people’s First Amendment rights; they can voice opposition and demand changes to laws or policies, but protesters do not have the authority to dictate or override federal immigration law as it is currently written and applied.
If one wants laws changed, the place to protest is at the Capitol. Because Congress proclaimed the immigration laws that ICE are enforsing.I don’t know if people are so much against ICE more than with policies turning them into storm troopers and creating a banner headline every single day. Instead of the scorch earth policy, specific targeting of individuals as warranted by a judge might show a little more discretion rather than terrorizing entire communities. It does not make for a pretty picture and its not going help this administration in the long term. Yes, obey the law, but sadism and brutality need not be a part of its enforcement.
I get where you’re coming from about how ICE is portrayed, but I think part of the problem is that when protesters are actually impeding active law‑enforcement actions, it does create additional safety issues for both officers and bystanders. In Minneapolis recently, federal immigration enforcement drew large crowds at arrest sites that escalated tensions, and in some cases required more agents to secure the scene because of the size and behavior of the crowd.
That’s not about supporting every federal action uncritically, I think unnecessary force or bad tactics should absolutely be criticized, but there’s a difference between peaceful protest and crowds physically interfering with an arrest or surrounding agents in a way that creates a dangerous situation for everyone involved. When that happens, it forces law enforcement to use more personnel at a given location to try to keep the peace, which can look chaotic and inflame tensions even further.
Here in Michigan, we’re not seeing that kind of situation, arrests are happening without similar disruptions, and local police can assist without large confrontations because the crowds aren’t showing up to block the process. That doesn’t mean enforcement should be brutal or without oversight, but we do see fewer problems when protesters are not physically impeding the legal process.
So I think there’s room for protest and for accountability, but that doesn’t change the reality that interfering with an ongoing arrest, even if you disagree with the policy, tends to create more problems, not fewer.
Deportations have occurred without these problems before Trump took over. My gosh, it is being reported that Obama deported 5 million. We have never witnessed this kind of chaos in removing illegal migrants. One should consider that.
That is the real issue: What does a judge have to gain by releasing a criminal back into the city instead of deporting them? Could it all be about votes?
I am amazed by your intelligent comment. Do you speak English?
Doc, This explanation does it better than I can
———
The idea that sanctuary cities are used to get Democratic votes is a political argument and a matter of intense public debate, with different perspectives on the motivations and effects.
The main arguments are:
Attracting a favorable voting base: The presence of large immigrant populations (who tend to live in areas that vote Democratic) may shift political power by influencing congressional apportionment, which is based on total population, not just eligible voters. This increases the general political power of those regions. Non-citizens themselves cannot vote in federal or state elections, and non-citizen voter fraud is rare.
Political strategy and cultural identity: Sanctuary policies have become a way for Democratic-governed areas to signal their opposition to the immigration agenda of Republican leaders, such as former President Trump, and to project an image of being welcoming. This solidifies support among their base, which includes voters who favor more humane and comprehensive immigration reform.
Community trust and public safety: Proponents of sanctuary cities argue the main goal is to build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. When individuals, regardless of status, feel safe reporting crimes or accessing essential services (healthcare, schools) without fear of deportation, it improves overall public safety for everyone.
Republican counter-strategy: Conversely, Republicans use the "sanctuary city" label in their campaigns, claiming these policies undermine the rule of law and endanger public safety. This rhetoric is effective in mobilizing their own voters, particularly white non-college voters and Independents, and framing the issue as a "culture war".
In essence, while non-citizens cannot directly cast votes in federal elections, their presence impacts demographic and political power dynamics, and the policies themselves serve as a potent symbol in the ongoing partisan debate over immigration.
Three main points that I emphasize:
1. While illegal migrants do not have the right to vote, considering their numbers in congressional apportionment based on total population is a valid concern.
2. There is no obligation for municipal or state law enforcement to prosecute these illegals as enforcement is beyond their jurisdiction. But, I agree that state or municipal law enforcement should not impede the efforts of federal immigration authorities.
3. My most important point is that I am among the group of voters that want a more humane and comprehensive immigration reform. We have yet to see that over several administrations…We can make it more humane:
1 - Stop our government from funding NGO and UN efforts to help illegal migrants reach America and cross illegally.
2 - Stop illegal migrants from crossing the border, if that requires hiring another million Border Patrol and ICE agents, that's fine, it employs another million Citizens.
3 - Shut down all funds and programs available to migrants that have not come here legally, if you make it economically viable for people to come here illegally to get government benefits, they will do so.
Illegal migrants will stop coming if there are no benefits, only hardships, for them to come here.The United Nations (UN) Stance
Respects Sovereignty: The UN upholds the principle of state sovereignty, which gives nations the right to control their borders and determine who enters their territory.
Upholds Human Rights: The core of the UN's approach is that all individuals, regardless of their migratory status, are entitled to basic human rights protections under international law.
Advocates for "Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration": The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is a non-binding framework that aims to improve migration governance and address challenges, while respecting national laws.
Provides Humanitarian Aid: UN agencies like the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) provide essential aid (food, shelter, medical care, and sometimes cash assistance) to migrants in transit and destination countries to address humanitarian needs and vulnerabilities.
Focuses on Legal Processes: The UN promotes awareness of legal migration options and provides information and legal assistance to help migrants understand their rights and the asylum process.
Criticisms and Allegations
Critics, particularly from border security advocacy groups and some U.S. lawmakers, argue that the actions of the UN and NGOs encourage illegal immigration:
"Pull Factors": The provision of aid and services is viewed by critics as an incentive for people to make the journey, even illegally, by making the process easier.
Taxpayer Funding Concerns: There are significant concerns that U.S. taxpayer dollars, which fund many of these operations, are inadvertently supporting illegal border crossings.
Facilitation of Movement: Testimonies and reports have suggested that some NGOs actively participate in moving undocumented individuals throughout the country, which critics frame as facilitating illegal activity.
———
This is what my opinion is about your first point, from the UN and NGO standpoint. Ever heard of asylum, not all persons crossing the border are necessary illegal until determined in a hearing?
2. AT what point are migrants determined to be illegal or otherwise? Or do we use your steam shovel approach?
3. OKTop 10 Countries with Most Immigrants
United States: 50,633,000
Germany: 15,762,000
Saudi Arabia: 13,455,000
Russia: 11,637,000
United Kingdom: 9,360,000
UAE: 8,716,000
France: 8,525,000
Canada: 8,049,000
Australia: 7,686,000
Spain: 6,842,000
https://worldostats.com/country-stats/i … y-country/
I think we have done our fair share as a nation, it is time to put on the breaks and clean up the mess Open Borders Biden left us with.
Credence, did you mean "citizens committing crimes" or "migrants committing crimes"?
Also, migrants may be here legally - like the father of the 5 year old was. But, DHS broke the law in arresting him and sending him to the Texas concentration campESO, in an attempt to clarify what I intended to say, I resented the idea that a reason to zero in on illegal migrants is that they are crime prone. Every piece of data out there says statistically they commit less crime than American citizens.
You are correct about legal migrants, all the more reason that due process procedures regarding their designation and treatment should be adhered to by the current regime.
Let's have a look at some of the crimes native-born Americans are committing. Makes one wonder why there are no protests to bring these crimes into the light of day.
* New Orleans attack — A New Year’s attack in New Orleans tied by investigators to Shamsud-Din Jabbar, described as a “U.S.-born citizen from Texas.”
* Florida State University shooting (Tallahassee, FL) — Reuters reported a gunman (identified as Phoenix Ikner) killed two and wounded others at FSU before being shot by officers.
* Minnesota lawmaker assassination (MN) — Reuters reported Vance Boelter was arrested and charged after allegedly killing Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding another lawmaker and spouse, while posing as a police officer.
* Pennsylvania governor’s residence arson (Harrisburg, PA) — Reuters reported the suspect (Cody Balmer) was charged after an arson attack on Gov. Josh Shapiro’s official residence, involving homemade incendiary devices and serious felony charges
* Devils Den double-homicide stabbing (Arkansas) — AP reported Andrew McGann was charged with capital murder in the stabbing deaths of a couple hiking with their children.
* Michigan Walmart mass stabbing (Traverse City, MI) — AP reported at least 11 people were stabbed at a Walmart; a suspect was taken into custody.
* Mississippi mass shooting (Leland, MS) — AP reported six dead and more than a dozen injured; multiple arrests followed, with murder charges.
* Charlotte light-rail murder (Charlotte, NC) — AP reported Decarlos Brown Jr. faced federal charges in the killing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a train (state murder charges also pending).
* Minneapolis Catholic school shooting (Minneapolis, MN) — AP reported a 20-year-old fatally shot a child and a man at a K–8 school and wounded others.
* Charlie Kirk assassination case (Utah) — Reuters reported Tyler Robinson was charged with killing activist Charlie Kirk with a single long-range rifle shot; prosecutors signaled they would seek the death penalty.
These are not “street crimes,” but they are serious unlawful conduct matters commonly cited in political debate:
* Trump Hush-money criminal case (NY) — On going litigation over the Trump conviction and venue/federal-removal issues continued into January 2026.
* E. Jean Carroll civil judgment (sexual abuse/defamation finding against Trump and damages) — Reporting in January 2026 noted developments at the Supreme Court posture following appellate rulings on a judgment.
Oh, and then there are the deferred prosecutions of Trump for insurrection and Classified Documents mishandling jeopardizing the national security of America.
I have to ask - Why is your side OK with diverting critical resources from perusing these types of crimes in addition to investigating probable murders by DHS agents to tracking down and locking up mainly nannies and landscapers and, oh by the way, an occasional violent undocumented alien crime.
You MAGAs can whine and twist all you want, but the truth is they lied again. Another US citizen is dead at the hands of ICE. And instead of a real investigation of the facts, especially when there are videos and witnesses, they lied from the jump. A blatant lie. Only morons or willfully blinds believe them.
Would you prefer that the agent(s) be handed over to the biased, political forces of Walz for a proper hanging? There still won't be a "real investigation of the facts", but the agent will pay the price for doing shat Walz doesn't like...
Again you project. It isn't the MN courts that would be biased. That is what Trump and his DOIJ is for.
"Fox News said Tom Homan should be sent to Minnesota — 20 minutes later, Trump did exactly that"
Fancy That, lol.Here’s the ABC minute-by-minute timeline, with the shot-by-shot sequence added, and with the moment involving the woman Pretti tried to help clearly flagged. ABC says it is based on six verified videos; where the “pushed to the ground” detail goes beyond ABC’s wording, I’m marking it and citing the source that states it.
8:54:54 a.m. — Activists arrive at Nicollet Avenue (eyewitness video obtained by AP).
8:55:51 — Someone calls for more observers after spotting federal officers (“Need more observers…”).
8:56:29 — At least eight federal officers gather outside Glam Doll Donuts.
8:57:46 — Officers are seen preparing pepper-spray canisters as more protesters arrive.
Pretti filming / escalation
8:58:11 — Pretti holds up his phone toward a federal officer, apparently recording a nearby detention.
8:58:22 — A second officer with pepper spray approaches Pretti.
8:58:29 — An officer appears to push Pretti toward the sidewalk.
8:59:08 — Another witness begins recording; Pretti continues filming during a detention in the street.
8:59:24 — Pretti films as a detainee is moved into a nearby vehicle.
9:00:12 — Pretti continues filming as officers interact with two civilians, one with an orange backpack and another in a parka.
9:00:21 — Those two civilians speak with an agent; officer says “Watch out for that car” as a car passes.
Woman Pretti tried to help — pushed / knocked down
9:00:41 — Officer shouts “Do not push them into traffic,” and pushes one civilian toward Pretti; Pretti keeps filming.
9:00:44 — The pushed civilian appears to hold onto Pretti as the officer approaches.
9:00:47 — Officer is seen pushing the person with the orange backpack.
Ground/pavement detail (not ABC’s wording): another account describing the same moment says the woman with the orange backpack appeared to be violently pushed onto the snow-covered pavement and struggled to get up.
That matters because this is the person multiple accounts say Pretti then tried to assist.
Pepper spray / physical restraint
9:00:45 — Officer appears to push Pretti. (Why?)
9:00:50 — Officer pepper-sprays Pretti (Why?); ABC’s contributor interprets Pretti’s raised hand as nonthreatening/defensive.
9:00:53 — Officer pepper-sprays the other two civilians again.
9:00:54 — Pretti appears to fall into/grab the backpacked person, possibly to stabilize after being sprayed.
9:00:56 — Officer appears to pull/tug Pretti into the street by the hood. (Why?)
9:01:02 — Three officers hold Pretti down; ABC contributor describes tactics as a “free-for-all.”
9:01:05 — A woman is heard screaming: “That is police brutality… They’re kicking them in the face.” (Is that what DHS is trained to do?)
9:01:11 — One agent appears to repeatedly punch Pretti.
9:01:12 — One officer appears to draw a handgun. (Why? They are punching Pretti but "might" have FINALLY seen the gun in Pretti's waistband)
9:01:13 — A federal officer appears to remove a gun from Pretti’s waist.
Shots (shot-by-shot)
9:01:14 — (One Second Later) First shot is fired into Pretti's back (at an unarmed man}
9:01:16 — (Wait two long seconds later) Three additional shots fired into Pretti's back (total now 4).
9:01:19 — (Wait Three very long seconds later than) Six more shots are put into Pretti's back (total now 10).
ABC cites forensic audio analysis concluding 10 shots in <5 seconds.
Aftermath
9:01:45 — Officer approaches Pretti; ABC cites a doctor’s sworn affidavit describing multiple gunshot wounds.
9:02:28 — (One minute and 15 seconds later) Officer in gray jacket says, “I got the gun. I got the gun,” and walks toward other officers while Pretti lays there probably dead, but nobody is checking.
So, if I were a prosecutor, here is what I would point out to the jury:
1. Pretti NEVER held a gun, only a camera.
2. Pretti NEVER was aggressive toward any officer
3. One agent drew is gun, presumably because he say the legal gun in Pretti's waist band.
4. That same agent saw, or should have seen, another agent take Pretti's gun
5. The agent who drew his gun then, after seeing that Pretti doesn't have a gun, shoots him in the back.
6. That agent waits two seconds and pumps another 3 rounds into Pretti's back.
7. Three seconds after that, one or more agents join it shooting Pretti in the back SIX MORE TIMES, this while the agent who has Pretti's gun stands around and watches.
In my opinion, that is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that DHS murdered Pretti.The agent who drew his gun then, after seeing that Pretti doesn't have a gun, shoots him in the back.
6. That agent waits two seconds and pumps another 3 rounds into Pretti's back.
7. Three seconds after that, one or more agents join it shooting Pretti in the back SIX MORE TIMES, this while the agent who has Pretti's gun stands around and watches.
————
What kind of cowards shoot an unarmed subdued man in the back 10 times?
These men are beasts unhinged, I would want an answer to that question?
Uh-oh, NRA & co. are not going to be happy.
So, is the president against the Second Amendment?
President Donald Trump avoided calling Alex Pretti a “domestic terrorist” when asked if he agreed with that assessment, made by some officials in the president’s administration including White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
“I haven’t heard that,” Trump said of Pretti. “But certainly shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.”
Trump added that everyone in the room, which included members of the GOP Iowa congressional delegation, viewed Pretti’s shooting as “a very unfortunate incident.”
“Everyone, unless you’re a stupid person, very, very unfortunate incident. I don’t like that he had a gun. I don’t like that. He had two fully loaded magazines. That’s a lot of bad stuff. And despite that, I say that’s very unfortunate,” Trump said.
Trump, asked by a reporter today whether he thought Pretti was acting like an "assassin" before he was fatally shot, shook his head and said "no."
"With that being said," he added, "you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. ... It's a very unfortunate incident."Yep, Trump is a straight shooter, always has been!
I thought Lies were crooked (Trump has well over 40,000 since he first took office). I guess MAGA has a different definition.
Well, your thinking, counting, guessing and definitions, are all wrong!
Don't you ever get tired?It is all documented and you know it.
You make a lot of claims (false ones) about me. Do you care to prove any of them or are we just supposed to take your word?
As to getting tired - I would think being under Trump's thumb would be both painful and tiresome.
So, her yup agrees with the statement (that Trump is against the 2nd amendnent) or agrees with Trump's opinion -against the 2nd amendm., or both? Uhm. Interesting.
Now this is what I call ‘Philly Strong”, get up, stand up, resist……
Political ramifications are to result from Trump’s ill considered plans.
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/28/philad … e-off-ice/"Now this is what I call ‘Philly Strong”, get up, stand up, resist……" Cred
I don’t understand the idea that people should “resist ICE from doing their job.” If ICE is carrying out law enforcement actions under the laws on the books, why not let them make arrests peacefully instead of physically getting in their way? By trying to impede ICE officers as they perform their duties, protesters aren’t just expressing dissatisfaction with immigration policy, they’re interfering with law enforcement and escalating tensions.
People absolutely have the right to be unhappy with our immigration laws and how they’re enforced; that’s part of free speech and peaceful protest. But if the goal is to be heard and to change laws or policies, that protest needs to be directed at Congress and state legislatures, where immigration law is made and debated. Bringing federal agents into the middle of street confrontations, especially during situations that have already turned violent and tragic, such as the recent deaths and clashes in Minneapolis, only raises the risk of harm and polarizes the debate further.
Protesting is one thing. Blocking and physically resisting law enforcement in the field is something else entirely. If people want a meaningful impact, they need to focus on peaceful civic action, not actions that put everyone in danger and make it harder for law enforcement to carry out their job quietly and safely.
I read the article you offered---
I’ll be direct: this article is not reporting, it’s agitation. Its purpose is not to inform readers about immigration enforcement, federal–local jurisdiction, or constitutional limits, it is to inflame fear, delegitimize a federal agency, and morally justify interference with lawful federal authority. Nearly every paragraph is written to provoke outrage rather than understanding, and that intent shows clearly.
The language is deliberately incendiary. Terms like “armed goons,” “invasion,” “wannabe Nazis,” “terror campaign,” and “militarized abuse” are not descriptive, they are rhetorical weapons. They pre-load the reader emotionally so that ICE is framed as an occupying army rather than a congressionally authorized federal agency enforcing federal law. This isn’t accidental. When an article consistently substitutes slurs for facts, it signals that persuasion, not accuracy, is the goal.
The article repeatedly asserts claims without evidence, especially the most serious ones. It states that two “peaceful locals” were killed while protesting ICE in Minneapolis, yet provides no sourcing, no names, no context, and no acknowledgment of any ongoing investigations or disputed facts. That omission matters. When deaths are used as moral leverage but stripped of verifiable detail, the reader is being manipulated, not informed. Responsible journalism would slow down here; this piece accelerates.
And most troubling—the article openly promotes the obstruction of a federal agency. The proposed “ICE Out” legislation is not framed as a constitutional debate over federalism or civil liberties; it is framed as a tactical effort to “make life very hard for federal agents” and “severely limit what immigration authorities can do.” That is not passive non-cooperation. That is intentional interference. Encouraging local officials to arrest federal agents for carrying out federal law runs directly into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law supreme over state and local law. The article never grapples with this reality because acknowledging it would collapse the narrative.
The piece actively endorses vigilantism and intimidation. Praising the removal of masks so agents can face “social consequences,” encouraging residents to track and film agents, and invoking language about “hunting down” ICE officers is reckless. Even if framed as accountability, this rhetoric courts harassment and violence. Imagine the reaction if a conservative article encouraged citizens to track, film, and socially punish FBI agents or DOJ prosecutors. The outrage would be immediate, and justified.
The article treats disagreement as moral depravity. Anyone who supports immigration enforcement is cast as sadistic, bloodthirsty, or mentally unwell. Trump is not criticized on policy grounds but caricatured as irrational, senile, and driven by “pinball-like impulses.” This is dehumanization, not analysis. It exists to shut down debate by implying that only monsters could disagree.
The piece reveals its propagandistic aim when it admits that ICE enforcement is viewed primarily as “propaganda” and that resistance should be organized to deny the administration optics. That is a political strategy memo masquerading as journalism. It is explicitly about narrative warfare, not law, governance, or public safety.
I don’t have to agree with every ICE tactic—or with Trump—to recognize what this article is doing. It encourages defiance of constitutional structure, legitimizes obstruction of federal law, and frames escalation as moral heroism. That is dangerous territory in any republic. If the authors believe immigration law should change, the honest route is Congress, courts, and elections, not local nullification and mob pressure.
At its core, this article is meant to stir trouble. It manufactures fear, hardens divisions, and normalizes resistance to federal authority when that authority is politically inconvenient. That’s not courage. It’s destabilization dressed up as virtue.
On a second note, I find myself wondering how Senator John Fetterman, who represents the people of Philadelphia and has often projected a more plain-spoken, common-sense approach, would react to an article like this. The rhetoric goes far beyond criticism and drifts into openly encouraging confrontation with a federal agency, even flirting with justification for chaos, and that’s where it becomes dangerous. What worries me is that we’re already seeing more Democrats in Washington tolerate, excuse, or rhetorically sanitize protests that tip into intimidation or violence when it suits their politics. My bet is that Fetterman would ultimately come down on the side of the law as written, supporting the immigration and removal statutes Congress has put in place rather than endorsing obstruction or escalation that undermines the rule of law.This is just an “opinion piece”, I am sure “the Right” has as many counterparts.
After two questionable fatalities in Minneapolis, I don’t see why Philly should welcome these “people” with open arms. The question remains, have they been making their arrests peacefully?
State and local governments are not there to enforce immigration law, that is for the ICE folks.
——
“Throughout eight years in office, the Obama administration logged more than 3.1 million ICE deportations, according to Syracuse's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The peak was fiscal year 2012, when more than 407,000 people were removed. By comparison, the first Trump administration maxed out at deporting 269,000 people in 2019, according to the same TRAC data set. Across four years, the Trump administration recorded fewer than 932,000 deportations.”
——
So, obviously, ICE was doing its job under the Obama administration to an even a greater degree, without the band standing, sadism and barbarism we witness within the Trump regime.
ICE has become far more contentious under Donald Trump largely because enforcement expanded dramatically, rules that once limited who was targeted were removed, and several high‑profile lethal incidents and civil‑rights controversies drew intense public scrutiny. The shift wasn’t just in scale but in tactics, visibility, and the kinds of people being arrested, which generated far more backlash than in previous administrations.
Key Reasons ICE Became More Contentious Under Trump
1. A Major Shift in Enforcement Priorities
• Under previous administrations, ICE generally emphasized arresting people with serious criminal convictions.
• Under Trump, former ICE officials noted that the agency abandoned the “worst first” approach, meaning any undocumented person became a priority, regardless of criminal history. POLITICO
• This broadened scope led to more arrests in homes, workplaces, and public spaces, increasing public fear and political tension.
2. Large‑Scale, Highly Visible Crackdowns
• The Trump administration deployed thousands of federal agents to cities during major immigration sweeps.
• In Minneapolis, for example, a surge of federal officers led to clashes with protesters and contributed to a “crisis of trust,” according to reporting on the ground. TIME
• These operations were more militarized and public than in earlier administrations, making ICE’s presence far more controversial.
3. High‑Profile Use‑of‑Force Incidents
• Several fatal shootings by ICE and Border Patrol officers during Trump’s immigration crackdowns drew national outrage.
• Polling after the killing of Renee Good showed 61% of voters believed ICE tactics had “gone too far.” ABC News
• These incidents intensified scrutiny of ICE’s conduct and raised questions about oversight and accountability.
4. Legal Challenges and Detention Conditions
• Courts ordered the Trump administration to release video footage and documents related to alleged constitutional violations at ICE facilities, including claims of poor conditions and restricted access to counsel. Law & Crime
• Such litigation highlighted concerns about transparency and due process.
5. Expanded Delegation of Authority & Local Impact
• The administration broadened programs that allowed local law enforcement to act with ICE authority, increasing the reach of federal immigration enforcement. factually.co
• This blurred lines between local policing and federal immigration enforcement, sparking resistance from cities and civil‑rights groups.
6. Public Backlash and Political Polarization
• The combination of expanded raids, lethal incidents, and aggressive tactics led to widespread protests and political division.
• Even some lawmakers within Trump’s own party expressed concern about the scale and consequences of the raids. factually.co
How This Differs From Previous Administrations
• Obama-era ICE conducted high numbers of deportations, but enforcement was more targeted, and internal guidelines prioritized individuals with serious criminal records.
• Under Trump, those guidelines were removed, enforcement became more sweeping, and the agency’s actions were more frequently in the national spotlight.
• The result was a perception—shared by former ICE leaders—that the agency was operating in unprecedented ways. POLITICO
——-=
So after all of this how do we benefit from the Trump ham handed handling of this matter? As far as resisting this program is concerned, I consider it as the late John Lewis defines it as “good trouble”.
Even you admitted that the latest killing in Minneapolis is out of line and as Nathanville told you, were past “wait and see”. The evidence consistently point to group of bloodthirsty thugs executing a man with a cell phone camera in hand, shooting him in the back several times while subdued. I don’t want such people free to operate with impunity in any American city. Sugarcoating and other forms of ameliorating the reality behind all this will not do. There is nothing courageous or honorable about shooting an unarmed man in the back….you are excusing ICE based on “not agreeing with all of its tactics”. Too many of its tactics has already crossed the line.
I will bet that even the DINO, John Fetterman will have to acknowledge when enough is enough and will want ICE reined in.
So based on what Philadelphia proposes here is my take:
“Federal officers would be banned from obscuring their identity with face masks and required to wear badges;”
That is a problem, these people need to identify themselves, who knows that they are actually law officers? I want badges and identification to prove who you are. I would insist on that, one point for Philly.
“City services, including police, would be prohibited from cooperating with ICE or providing them data on residents;”
I might have grounds to disagree with this, local authorities should cooperate with the exception of providing data on residents
“ICE agents would be banned from any city property — including courts, schools and hospitals — without a judicial warrant;”
I take the greatest offense concerning this, it is a no-no and is the mark of tyranny and despotism. I want proper and legal warrants issued by an impartial judge not ICE administrative hacks, as authority to access private property against the will of the occupant. I consider this a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That is supported below:
“ICE has recently asserted that it can enter homes using administrative warrants—not warrants signed by a judge—despite strong constitutional objections. Multiple whistleblower‑revealed memos from 2025–2026 show ICE directing agents to forcibly enter residences based solely on internal DHS‑issued documents, a major break from longstanding Fourth Amendment–based practice. Newsweek +3”
“What ICE Is Using Instead of Judicial Warrants
• Administrative warrants• Signed by ICE officials, not judges.
• Historically not sufficient for home entry without consent.
• Recent internal memos instruct agents to rely on these to enter homes and make arrests, including with force. Yahoo +1”
“And public services and private businesses would be prevented from refusing service based on immigration status.”
I am fine with this, the immigration status of anyone is none of the business of state and local government, I would not want to impede on ICE doing their job. Otherwise, I would need my citizenship papers to get a chicken sandwich at “ChickFilet”
The article expresses an opinion which many of us share regarding ICE and its behavior and is not a call to action.What she is also incorrectly assuming is that DHS is carrying out their job lawfully. If they are breaking the law, then they need to be resisted as all tyrants should be.
Before Trump, DHS was successfully carrying out its mission in Minneapolis and "doing its job" without violating people's rights all the time. What changed? Trump did by bring in the Gestapo.They are not carrying out their jobs lawfully, there are already structural violations consistent with their modus operandi, policy, that are illegal on its face. Much of it, I explained to Sharlee.
Trump is under pressure as this is out of line and everybody is realizing it."Trump is under pressure as this is out of line and everybody is realizing it." Cred
I agree with that, and I’m anxious to see how he balances the issue or comes up with real solutions to do what he promised while also curbing the violence we’ve seen on the streets when federal immigration agents operate in some cities. I don’t think many Americans want to see clashes like the ones we’ve watched unfold recently, including the confrontations and shootings involving federal agents in Minneapolis that have ignited nationwide discussion over enforcement tactics and public safety. At the same time, many of us did vote for stronger action to deport illegal migrants, so it’s a sticky situation politically and practically. I guess now we wait and see what direction he takes: he might decide to limit federal enforcement in so‑called blue cities and concentrate efforts in red cities that are more supportive of cooperation. In a way, it seems like some in blue cities feel they want to protect migrants, and maybe in those places the people themselves should have a greater say. Let the chips fall where they may. It’s not the best solution, but I would not want to see federal taxpayer dollars continue to sustain cities that choose not to allow our federal laws to be carried out. I mean, we do have laws that dictate deporting illegal migrants. If a state chooses to protect and support them being in their state, I don't want my tax dollar involved in their decision to skirt the law.
I think as AB shared --- the after math not be good.Taking the lead from Ken, or maybe it was Mark or Wilderness, " the issue or comes up with real solutions to do what he promised while also curbing the violence we’ve seen on the streets when federal immigration agents operate in some cities." - If the federal agents weren't there breaking the law, there would be no violence.
These cities simply don't want to help the feds break the law.“At the same time, many of us did vote for stronger action to deport illegal migrants, so it’s a sticky situation politically and practically.”
True, but there is a wide gap between the status quo and instituting a virtual “reign of terror”. The Trump administration might have done better finding a middle road or path.
I don’t dispute that individual ICE actions deserve scrutiny, nor do I excuse misconduct. But this argument blends isolated incidents, political reaction, and enforcement visibility into a single conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the facts.
Deportation totals across administrations are not evidence of restraint or abuse by themselves. The Obama administration recorded high deportation numbers largely during a period of elevated border crossings and after DHS changed how removals were counted. Those figures reflect enforcement volume, not enforcement methods. Similarly, lower or higher totals under later administrations do not, on their own, demonstrate greater humanity or brutality.
Consider the Obama administration did not end immigration enforcement; it exercised discretion through prioritization. Trump-era policy removed many of those discretionary exemptions. That represents a difference in executive philosophy, not a difference between lawful and unlawful enforcement. Whether prioritization should exist is a policy debate, not proof that one administration acted within the law while another abandoned it.
Claims that ICE was “less contentious” under Obama overlook the role of cooperation between federal and local authorities. During periods of greater cooperation, arrests were more often conducted in custodial settings, making enforcement less visible to the public. As cooperation declined in later years, enforcement shifted into public spaces, increasing controversy without necessarily changing the underlying legal authority.
Visibility and backlash are not evidence of misconduct. Public opposition, protests, or political polarization do not establish that enforcement tactics became unlawful; they reflect disagreement with policy direction, not proof of constitutional violations.
On alleged use-of-force incidents, including any fatal encounter involving federal officers: each must be judged individually based on evidence. Misconduct should be prosecuted fully, but individual cases cannot be used to invalidate an entire agency or to suspend enforcement nationwide. Due process applies to agents as well as civilians.
On warrants, the legal framework is clear and widely accepted:
Administrative ICE warrants do not authorize non-consensual entry into homes.
If agents exceed that authority, courts already provide remedies through suppression of evidence, civil liability, and injunctive relief. Municipal bans are not required to enforce constitutional limits.
Regarding Philadelphia’s proposals:
Requiring visible identification and badges is reasonable.
Requiring judicial warrants for entry onto private property aligns with the Fourth Amendment.
However, blanket bans on ICE access to courts, hospitals, or public property, even with valid warrants, interfere with lawful process rather than protect civil liberties.
Total refusal to share information eliminates precision in enforcement, increasing the likelihood of broader, less controlled operations.
Framing resistance as “good trouble” presumes that immigration enforcement itself is unjust. Immigration law is enacted by Congress and repeatedly upheld by courts. Disagreement with enforcement priorities does not convert lawful authority into tyranny.
You can demand accountability without dismantling enforcement.
You can defend civil liberties without nullifying federal law.
Philadelphia’s approach does not refine ICE; it constrains lawful authority in ways that risk increasing disorder rather than ensuring oversight.
Cities like Philadelphia absolutely have the right to say, “We’re not helping ICE.” That’s settled law. The federal government can’t force local police or city agencies to enforce immigration law, share databases, or act as extensions of ICE. On that point, Philly is well within its rights.
Where it gets shaky is when non-cooperation turns into obstruction. A city can opt out, but it can’t veto federal law. If ICE has a valid judicial warrant, blocking access to courts, hospitals, or other public spaces starts crossing into Supremacy Clause territory. That’s not protecting civil liberties, that’s setting up warrant-proof zones, and courts usually don’t look kindly on that.
Again, I’m actually fine with some of what Philly is proposing. Requiring badges and clear identification? Good. Judicial warrants for entering homes? That’s literally the Fourth Amendment, and I want judges, not agency paperwork, authorizing that kind of intrusion. On that, I’m with Philly.
But banning ICE from city property even when they’re acting lawfully, or cutting off all information sharing no matter the circumstances, doesn’t make enforcement more humane; it makes it less precise. When cooperation disappears entirely, arrests don’t stop; they just move into more public, more chaotic settings. That’s how you get worse outcomes, not better ones.
Bottom line for me: you can demand accountability without dismantling enforcement, and you can protect civil liberties without nullifying federal law. Philly has some reasonable ideas, but parts of this go too far and will probably get smacked down in court. Oversight is good. Blanket bans and symbolic defiance? Not so much.
I think we have clearly and completely shared our perspective on the subject. I am compelled to step away because I feel we are now beating a dead horse. Thanks for sharing your views.
No, the plan was put into place long ago.
There's nothing "ill considered" about the plan to get criminal illegal aliens out of our Country, once and for all!
What is "ill considered", is paying protestors, who then, follow their marching orders... inserting their noses where they don't belong! Paid protestors, and one too many useful idiots with a loose screw and a handy nose ring to be led by... ripe and ready, for these jobs! AS IF, they are showing up - in order to produce. All that is being produced or accomplished by their pathetic behavior is unnecessary injury, and/or, death!
What's "ill considered" is placing EVERYONE in jeopardy by getting between I.C.E. (or any other law enforcement officer) and the Perp! This used to be common sense, but that doesn't exist in warped minds!
It is past time for someone/anyone, in their lives, with some sense.... to save them by getting them out of the freakin' way! They don't have the capacity to save themselves!How do you know that they were paid?
Don’t you fret none, AB, we are going to get this guy
Trump, dragging him down from his lofty perch.Go ahead, Cred, get him, drag him down, but you may not like the aftermath, as much as you think you will.
P.S. I hope that you do not have daughters, granddaughters or great-granddaughters.Credence - if you do, keep them away from Trump.
AB, I hope that my great granddaughters can look back on this period seeing it as hopelessly barbaric with Donald Trump coming off as their version of “Attila the Hun”
I am guessing she still falls for the lies put out by Trump and is goons. Obviously, she has no proof to back up her claims.
Under the bus...
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is distancing himself from the Department of Homeland Security amid widespread outrage over the killing of Alex Pretti by immigration agents in Minneapolis.
Miller, an architect of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration enforcement campaign claimed Tuesay that his initial disparaging remarks about Pretti — as well as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s claim which included labeling Pretti as a “terrorist,” and that the victim “arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement” — “was based on reports from CBP on the ground.” He also said the agency may not have been following White House instructions with its overall handling of the enforcement operation in Minnesota.
“[T]he White House provided clear guidance to [the Department of Homeland Security] that the extra personnel that had been sent to Minnesota for force protection should be used for conducting fugitive operations to create a physical barrier between the arrest teams and the disruptors. We are evaluating why the [Customs and Border Protection] team may not have been following that protocol.”
The statement was a notable reversal and reflects efforts by different administration officials to deflect responsibility for an incident that has quickly spiraled into a disaster for the White House on one of its signature issues.
Amid fierce criticism, even from some Republicans, Trump has sought to tamp down the controversy by dispatching border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota to take charge of the immigration campaign there.
The administration also removed Greg Bovino, the commander at large for the Border Patrol who had become the public face of the aggressive campaign in Minneapolis and other cities.Fox article --- Leftist thugs and thugetts.
"Minn anti-Border Patrol riot backfires as agitators allegedly hurl objects at cops, arrests expose rap sheets
Demonstrators gathered outside Minnesota hotel believing Commander Gregory Bovino was staying there before police declared unlawful assembly
Several of the agitators arrested outside a Minnesota hotel where they believed Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino was staying have criminal records, with one arrestee openly embracing a "disrupt disturb resist" slogan on Instagram.
The agitators were outside the SpringHill Suites by Marriott in Maple Grove, Minnesota, on Monday night where they had thought Bovino was staying. Arrests were made after authorities said the demonstration was "no longer considered peaceful," and declared it an unlawful assembly.
Maple Grove police said its officers were responding to reports of a protest at the hotel, adding that it escalated when agitators allegedly began damaging property and throwing objects at officers.
Several people were arrested after they allegedly did not leave once an unlawful assembly and dispersal order was issued, officials said.
"The Maple Grove Police Department respects and upholds the First Amendment rights of individuals to peacefully assemble and express their views. Our priority remains the safety and security of all residents, visitors, and property within our community," police said in a statement to KSTP. "At that point, the activity was no longer considered peaceful. Individuals participating in criminal acts are not protected under the First Amendment and were subject to arrest."
Here are the 13 people arrested by police after protesting outside the hotel where they believed Bovino was staying:"
A PICTURE IS worth a thousand words.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/minn-anti-bo … rap-sheets
Are you one of these hypocrites?
"KFile: Trump officials denounce guns at protests — after defending armed protesters in 2020"
"Senior Trump administration officials who have recently argued that civilians should not bring firearms to protests defended and, in some cases, celebrated the same behavior in support of armed civilians who showed up at racial justice demonstrations in 2020, according to a review of public statements, media appearances and past writings.
The shift in rhetoric came after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse with a concealed-carry permit, on Saturday during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Within hours of the shooting, multiple administration officials publicly blamed Pretti for his own death, spreading a torrent of false claims contradicted by video evidence, and asserting that firearms should not be brought to protests.
But those assertions contradict years of statements by the same officials defending the Second Amendment rights of armed civilians at protests — including Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people, two fatally, at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020.
Take Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was quick to defend federal agents’ actions as justified since Pretti was carrying a gun.
“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition, rather than a sign,” Noem said at a press conference. “This is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers.”
No evidence has emerged that Pretti ever brandished his gun before being shot and killed on Saturday.
In addition, Noem’s remarks contrast with her prior statements praising armed civilians at protests. In her 2024 book, Noem wrote approvingly of what she described as “hundreds of Second Amendment-loving bikers” who appeared armed at a Black Lives Matter protest in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, saying they stood with police officers with guns on display."
Need I say more? Are you one?That is a great point regarding the OK the Right gives to Rittenhouse, who not only was packing but killed two in riot conditions. Yet, Trump says that Pretti should not have been armed. Hypocrisy and double standards with the Rightwing types reach ever greater highs.
But the world is coming for Trump and his appointed goons from every direction in American life. There will be a price to pay by both him and the GOP that brought him here.
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/29/even-t … g-ice-now/
The Pretti Case Exposes a Dangerous Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePoawDA_48
So much common sense, as well as legitimate legalese, from this man.Unless he is talking about the torrent of lies coming from Bovino, Noem, Miller, and Trump, then it is probably a lie itself.
Federal officials need to go to jail over this atrocity.
"More than 7 months after an antisemitic attack in Boulder, a family who says they knew nothing is still detained by ICE"
This is the way they do it in Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. Trump supporters should be proud that Trump follows those models so well.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/28/us/bould … lorado-iceLegal analyst says new video shows Alex Pretti's 'state of mind' before fatal Border Patrol shooting
Footage appears to show Pretti spitting at agents, damaging government SUV a week before Minnesota shooting
Newly released video that appears to show Alex Pretti spitting at federal agents and damaging a government SUV days before he was fatally shot by U.S. Customs and Border Protection/Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis "shows his state of mind" leading up to his death, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Wednesday.
"[He was] an angry person who is expressing his rage with assault. Spitting at an officer is assault, obviously attacking a federal government vehicle and destroying the property, and then he seems to resist, to some extent, the arrest. It tells you a lot about his mindset," Jarrett said on "Hannity."
The footage — reportedly recorded on Jan. 13 and published Wednesday by The News Movement — appears to show Pretti wearing clothes and glasses similar to those he wore when he was killed.
The man is seen shouting and spitting at federal agents before kicking the taillight of a federal SUV, causing it to break.
He shouted "f--- you" repeatedly and flashed double middle fingers as agents exited the vehicle, approached him and took him to the ground.
Pretti's family later confirmed his identity in the video to The Minnesota Star Tribune.
Just days later, Pretti was fatally shot by a Border Patrol officer during a targeted operation in Minneapolis, after video appeared to show him intervening to help a woman who had been knocked to the ground before the altercation continued.
"It's tragic that he lost his life, and it may be a case of mistaken perceptions when the shooting occurred, which invokes the imperfect self-defense, but that video tells a lot about Alex Pretti."
Steve Schleicher, attorney for the Pretti family, told Fox News in a statement: "A week before Alex was gunned down in the street – despite posing no threat to anyone – he was violently assaulted by a group of ICE agents."
"Nothing that happened a full week before could possibly have justified Alex’s killing at the hands of ICE on Jan. 24."
It is unfortunatate the local Police were not on site when this guy was kicking an ICE SUV. He was breaking the law at that point. If police were instructed to aid ICE when the protest got this out of control man possibly would have been alive. I fully expect more footage to emerge and more information on this individual. This is why I like to hold off on passing judgment. We just know too little about the incident, and what may have led up to it, over days, hours. His demeanor in the videos shows a very violent individual. And shows he was unafraid to break the law.
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR-oVRTMveo
It is unfortunate that DHS doesn't want local Police on-site.
* MPD says federal supervisors “refused further assistance from MPD” at an on-scene incident tied to the surge, after an MPD supervisor communicated with federal supervisors on scene. This is explicitly in CBS’s live reporting (timestamped Jan 26, 2026).
* State/local investigators say they were blocked from access to scenes/evidence afterward (even with warrants), and DHS leadership has argued Minnesota lacks jurisdiction in those federal-use-of-force investigations. That’s been a recurring flashpoint.
* Minneapolis’ own public posture (and separation ordinance framework) is that MPD doesn’t assist immigration enforcement, but can respond for imminent violence / public-safety thresholds—and crucially, MPD can’t override what federal agents decide to do. That dynamic makes it entirely plausible for MPD to show up for safety reasons and then be told, in effect, “we’ve got it.”
Should all 600 Minneapolis police officers been on-site? Would DHS have allowed them to be on-site in any case since they tell the local police to STAY AWAY. Did they know Pretti was going to kick the taillight? Isn't breaking Pretti's rib punishment enough for breaking a taillight? (probably not from the right-wing perspective).
What does him kicking a taillight 11 days earlier have to do with murdering him later? Where is the nexus?
" This is why I like to hold off on passing judgment. We just know too little about the incident, and what may have led up to it, over days, hours. His demeanor in the vidios show a very violent individual. And shows he was unafraid to break the law." - This is what whitewashing looks like when one attempts to link two unrelated events together to try to exonerate a murder.
Tom Horman said this this morning - "Border czar outlines plan: White House border czar Tom Homan said he has ordered federal immigration authorities to work on an eventual drawdown plan for law enforcement in Minnesota. In remarks to the press in Minneapolis, Homan — who has taken the reins on the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown there — said operations on the ground will be targeted and he is “staying ‘til the problem’s gone.”
Does that mean they will stay there until a Republican mayor is elected? That was the ONLY problem (well, the Gov is a Democrat to) that existed before Trump invaded the city. Crime was WAY DOWN and ICE and the locals worked together well to catch REAL criminals.
Medical watchdog unloads on VCU after nurse fired for viral anti-ICE TikTok video suggested drugging agents
Do No Harm's executive director said firing nurse Malinda Cook is the 'bare minimum.'
The head of a medical watchdog group unleashed on Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) after a nurse at the school's hospital lost her job over TikTok videos that went viral for all the wrong reasons.
"As we’ve documented at Do No Harm, VCU has a long history of pushing extreme identity politics into medical education and clinical treatment," Do No Harm's Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen told Fox News Digital. "Now, they act surprised when radicalism sprouts from a ground seeded with toxic ideology."
The group represents employees and students in the medical field, as well as patients and policymakers who are fighting to keep identity politics out of medical education, research and clinical practice. Do No Harm often pushes back against DEI initiatives and youth-focused gender ideology in medicine.
"When medical schools and hospitals allow radical politics to shape curriculum, they end up training harmful activists rather than skilled medical professionals," Rasmussen continued. "VCU Health firing this nurse is the bare minimum response. Unless they clean up their act, how will any patient feel safe walking through their doors?"
On Tuesday night, a compilation of VCU nurse Malinda Cook's TikTok videos was shared by popular X account LibsOfTikTok.
In one video, simply captioned with "#ice #resistance #sabotage," the nurse instructed others to use a "sabotage tactic" against opponents.
"I thought of something good," she said.
"Sabotage tactic, or at least scare tactic. All the medical providers, grab some syringes with needles on the end," she said. "Have them full of saline or succinylcholine, you know, whatever. Whatever. That will probably be a deterrent. Be safe."
Succinylcholine is an anesthetic that causes rapid, short-acting muscle paralysis. The paralytic effect typically lasts for four to six minutes.
In another video where she is dressed in scrubs, she suggests using poison ivy to infect others as a "resistance tactic." She explained that by mixing poison ivy or poison oak with water, it could be turned into a spray to infect opponents.
"Aim for faces, hands," she said.
In a third video, Cook gave resistance tips for single women.
"Single ladies, where these ICE guys are going, have a chance to do something, you know, not without risk, but could help the cause for sure," she said. "Get on Tinder, get on Hinge, find these guys. They're around. [If] they're an ICE agent, bring some ex-lax and put it in their drinks. Get them sick. You know, nobody's going to die. Just enough to incapacitate them and get them off the street for the next day. Highly, easily deniable."
"I'm just saying, let's get them where they eat," she said. "Somebody's not going to be supporting these guys. Where's the hotel where they eat? Who makes that breakfast? Let's find them."
"Let's make their lives f---ing miserable," she said later.
VCU Health opened an investigation on Tuesday morning, calling the posts "highly inappropriate" and noting that Cook had been placed on administrative leave.
Less than 12 hours later, the hospital announced that Cook had been fired.
VCU Health did not return a Wednesday comment request.
https://www.tiktok.com/@fraoch19774/vid … 9889362199
My oh my -----Here is what is TRUE:
* VCU did fire the employee
* The employee did post what was said
* The firing was done in less than 12 hours
Here is what is misleading or wildly exaggerated
* VCU has a long history pushing extreme identity politics… toxic ideology… radicalism sprouts… - That is pure opinion by a right-wing group and not true.
* “Do No Harm is not a "watchdog" nor is it medical. It is an far-right advocacy group whose stated mission is to oppose “identity politics”/DEI in medicine;
Here are the misstatements:
* Succinylcholine is an anesthetic”
* Poison ivy “infect others”
WHAT THIS IS is another example of finding one bad apple and saying the whole barrel is rotten. I find that disgraceful.
"‘Untethered to the facts’: Federal judges say Trump administration has a credibility issue as it battles immigration cases"
"“Unreliable,” “untethered to the facts” and “simply not credible.”
As the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown moved from Los Angeles to Portland to Chicago last year, that is how federal judges described claims made by the government in court." - Again, "Judges" plural, including Trump appointed judges.
The judge must have been reading the posts from the Right on this and other forums as well, lol.And spare me YOUR fake outrage by not protesting the thousands of women and children murdered by native-born Americans. I don't buy it. Don't you or Trump give a damn about them? Why? I know, it doesn't score political points with his base.
https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content … hatgpt.com
Malinda Rose Cook, who operated a now-deleted TikTok account under the name "Redheadredemption," shared multiple videos suggesting various methods to incapacitate federal immigration officers. In one video Cook instructed healthcare providers to prepare syringes filled with "saline or succinylcholine... whatever" to use against agents. Succinylcholine is a powerful muscle paralytic used in anesthesia.
In other videos, Cook suggested spraying officers with poison ivy-infused water and encouraged women to use dating apps to meet ICE agents and spike their drinks with laxatives to "get them off the street for the next day."
VCU Health initially placed Cook on administrative leave while investigating the videos, which they described as "highly inappropriate" and not reflecting "the integrity or values of our health system." VCU Police assisted with the investigation before the hospital terminated her employment.
Legal analyst Russ Stone told WRIC that prosecutors could potentially charge Cook with solicitation to commit a felony offense. "It's even more surprising because she's in the healthcare field, where the Hippocratic Oath says, 'First, do no harm,'" Stone said. "She's clearly not following her oath."
The controversy follows a similar case involving Florida nurse Alexis Lawler, who was fired from Baptist Health Boca Raton Regional Hospital after posting a TikTok wishing severe childbirth injuries on White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who is currently pregnant. On Wednesday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that Lawler is "no longer allowed to practice nursing in Florida" after the Florida Board of Nursing issued an emergency suspension order.
Official Status: No Public Confirmation of License Discipline Yet
So far, no authoritative report from the Virginia Board of Nursing or another professional licensing authority confirms that Cook’s license has been suspended, revoked, surrendered as of yet.
Legal analysts (quoted in reporting about Cook’s firing) have suggested that her statements could draw scrutiny from prosecutors or a licensing board, but these are commentary and legal theory — not actual board announcements
And so many more victims go unreported or ignored by the media. More importantly, even if overall crime rates are debated by leftists, any preventable murder committed by someone who should not have been in the country at all is not statistically trivial. No ratio or per-capita argument erases a life lost due to a policy failure. We have immigration laws --- All here illegally need to be deported.
If you never spoke out about any of these young women murdered by Jews, spare your fake outrage.
In other words stigmatization. And at the same time condoning ICE's murders and violence by remaining silent about them.Your comment is offensive and makes absolutely no sense. Comparing a discussion about illegal immigration and violent crime to “Jews” is anti-Semitic, and trying to silence concern about women murdered by people who broke our laws is absurd. Speaking out against ICE or law enforcement incidents does not mean condoning the murder of innocent Americans. Your attempt to stigmatize and conflate completely unrelated issues is both illogical and cruel. If you want credibility, start by keeping your hatred and false equivalences out of serious conversations about crime and public safety. I have no respect for anti-Semites. And in my view, your statement clearly shows anti-Semitism. I have not condone any form of violence, including ICE. Your boldness to make assumptions tells me much about your mindset.
I did not stigmatize any race, religion, or creed. I specifically addressed individuals who broke the law by being in my country illegally. You, on the other hand, openly stigmatized an entire religion.
I will be leaving this conversation. I have no intention of engaging further with someone whose views, in my opinion, are anti-Semitic. I call things as I see them. I won't be any part of giving antisemitism O2. Period.Sharlee, apperently you didn't understand what I wanted to say.
I was reacting on this specific visual meme you posted. not the whole discussion about immigrants.
I changed the word immigrants of the meme into Jews and the reaction is: I am antisemitic. Of course I'm antisemitic when I say such a thing, to show that in this post immigrants are stigmatized. Just like Jews are stigmatized when I change the word Immigrants for Jews. You don't except it for the group Jews, but you do accept it for the word Immigrants.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?
I'm Jewish myself, Sharlee, so to accuse me of antisemitism is not reading or understanding my post properly.Peter, this is an all-time low for you. I, honestly, cannot believe that people are going out of their way to defend criminal illegal aliens!! They became "criminal" the day they illegally crossed or overstayed their visa!! Many (not all) didn't stop there; as long as they were getting away with it... why not permanently take out a few young female joggers, Moms, kids, etc.!?! What difference does it make, when their actions are defended, no matter what they do!?!
Right?ICE arrests dozens of criminal illegal aliens convicted of murder, child rape and more in sanctuary state Minnesota
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-a … e-and-more
ICE has arrested members of some of the world’s most dangerous criminal gangs in Sanctuary Minnesota
The criminal illegal aliens — members of criminal gangs like MS-13, Paisas, Oriental Boys — have extensive rap sheets that include homicide, sexual assault and weapons crimes
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/under … -dangerous
ICE Arrests Worst of Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens Including Pedophiles, Violent Assailants, and Human Traffickers
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/07/ice … es-violentI do not defend criminal people. I simply stated that this meme stigmatizes illegal immigrants.
Not all illegal immigrants are murderers or rapists. This social posts is specifically targeting illegal immigrants. Again, that's why I swapped the word illegals for Jews, to make my point.
You can say illegals are "criminals" because they illegally crossed the border or overstayed their visa. True, just as you are "criminal" when you have a speed fine, or didn't stop when the traffic lights were red.
The word criminal can mean a lot of things, from stealing a bread when you are hungry to killing a person to not paying taxes.
It's very simple. Anyone who commits a criminal act, should stand in court and be judged accordingly, illegal or not, no matter the colour of skin, or how rich a person is.
But again, not all illegal persons are murderers, and this meme is stigmatizing illegal people. (As you could easily make a post of 12 woman murdered by "normal" Americans.)
On top of that, most people who immigrate to a different country don't make such a choice easily, leaving your family and the country you grew up in. It's a hard choice as it is difficult to make a new life in a different country. Making new friends, finding your way to make a living, organizing your papers etc. Especially if you can't speak the language.
All Americans (except for the native Americans) have been immigrants. Traveling to find a better life.
Illegal immigrants are not bad people, just as Americans are not bad people. In each group you have rotten apples. I don't like to make judgements about a group, only about individuals, and even than judging people is a tricky thing to do.I understand what you are trying to argue, but your explanations don’t change the fact that your original comment was antisemitic. Swapping “illegal immigrants” for “Jews” and implying they murder innocent women assigns collective blame to an entire religious group, which is harmful and unacceptable—regardless of your intentions.
This is very different from criticizing individuals for illegal actions, such as murder. Which was what my Meme did. The meme clearly was to point out hypocrisy. And it certainly worked in your case.
Being Jewish is an identity and faith, not a behavior, and there is no evidence that Jews set out to kill innocent people. Criticism of illegal migrants can be about specific actions, not a whole group’s identity. Your attempts to frame it as a “hypothetical” or to lecture on immigration do not excuse stigmatizing an entire people.
You left out the word illegal ---
I understand exactly what you’re trying to say, but your “thought experiment” doesn’t excuse what you wrote. Replacing “immigrants” with “Jews” and presenting it as a joke or demonstration is still antisemitic.
I’m talking about real women who were murdered by individuals in the U.S. illegally. Their deaths were preventable if our laws had been enforced. I am not blaming an entire religion; being Jewish is a matter of faith. not behavior, unlike individuals who enter the country illegally, refuse to leave, and then commit crimes. There is no evidence that those of the Jewish faith set out to kill innocent people. Criticizing illegal migrants for crimes is about specific actions, not their religion, not identity. Your attempt to swap groups and assign collective blame is false, harmful, and antisemitic.
It should be noted that being Jewish indicates a single religion. Migrants, on the other hand, come from many different religions and nationalities. Those in the U.S. illegally are categorized based on their legal status, not their identity.Jews were illegal in Germany in the 1930s.
It's insanity...
Comparing the persecution of an entire people, to the efforts to remove foreign actors who rape, murder, steal and traffic humans.
The Biden Administration ADMITTED to flying in over 320,000 criminals.
The Trump Administration is trying to round them up and throw them out of the country, and protect AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign criminals... forced to deal with this because of Biden/Democrats gross negligence.
HOW THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S LAX IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT ALLOWS DANGEROUS CRIMINAL ALIENS TO RUN
FREE IN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-s … ican-C.pdfI am honestly exhausted by this kind of hostile and dishonest attitude. I can’t stomach it anymore. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I’m sorry, but posts like these deserve to be called out.
Comparing immigration enforcement to the Holocaust, where human beings were stripped of all rights and systematically murdered in a genocide, is beyond offensive. Enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress is not even remotely comparable. That comparison cheapens real history and real suffering.
Posting the names and stories of murder victims is necessary. These were innocent people—tortured, raped, and killed by individuals who should never have been in this country to begin with. Under the Biden administration, people were allowed to walk in or cross over with little to no meaningful vetting, and the consequences have been devastating.
At this point, I’m done tolerating the nonsense. I find these arguments illogical and completely disconnected from basic common sense and any honest evaluation of right versus wrong.
I’ve come to feel that engaging in these types of conversations reflects poorly on my own intelligence.
He is trying to say that the US government is using a fascist playbook at the moment comparable with the '30 in Germany.
Quote Trump "I am a dictator, But sometimes you need a dictator." - World Economic Forum in Davos, Zwitserland, 21.1.2026
The budget of ICE is bigger than the budget of the police and all law enforcement together!!!
Doesn't that ring a bell?Here is the full quote you only offered a snipped, and the context reads differently than the full quote ---
"Here’s the full context of what Trump actually said when he made the remark about being a “dictator” at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, 2026:
“We had a good speech. We got great reviews. I can’t believe it. We got good reviews in that speech. Usually, they say, ‘he’s a horrible dictator‑type person.’ I’m a dictator. But sometimes you need a dictator. But they didn’t say that in this case. And no, it’s common sense. It’s all based on common sense. You know, it’s not conservative or liberal or anything else. It’s mostly, let’s say, 95 % common sense.” President Trump
"My Esoteric wrote:
Jews were illegal in Germany in the 1930s." ECO
This comment was not addressed to you. It would appear you feel you can speak for ECO.
No — the claim that “the budget of ICE is bigger than the budget of the police and all law enforcement together” is not true as stated.
Some commentators point out that within federal law enforcement, ICE is now among the most heavily funded agencies, potentially surpassing others like the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and Bureau of Prisons if you count the supplemental funds spread across multiple years.
But that doesn’t mean ICE’s funding exceeds the combined total of all law enforcement in the entire United States, which includes huge budgets at the state and local level.
ICE’s budget increased because Congress passed a large supplemental funding bill that dramatically expanded immigration enforcement funding, and because the current administration prioritized aggressive immigration enforcement and deportations. These policy and funding decisions together drove the substantial growth in ICE’s budget. Biden left America with a problem hr caused due to his lack of border control. Trump was sent with a mandate to fix the problem, deport and rid our country of illegal migrants. Which is not a small job, but a job We The People sent him to do. He ran strongly on immigration and promised openly that he would deport illegal migrants.
I think if you take the time to look at other nations, you’ll find that many are rethinking their immigration policies as well. The U.S. is certainly being aggressive, there’s no denying that, but it’s also true that Trump never minced words about the immigration agenda he was proposing. He was elected by a majority, and we do have oversight bodies reviewing ICE and making changes to its procedures. That context matters, even if people don’t like the policy itself. We have laws, and it shouldn't shock anyone that some of us demand they are followed, or changed if the majority wants them changed.You keep saying that the "comment wasn't addressed to x". Who cares? It was made on a public forum. Are you trying to censor the speaker?
As to Trump the dictator.
While you are right that Trump set up the line as "Usually, they say, ‘he’s a horrible dictator‑type person.’ I’m a dictator. But sometimes you need a dictator.". Then he points out, maybe correctly or maybe incorrectly, that "But they didn’t say that in this case. "
What is MISSING is a denial. By not denying it, he is normalizing it.
Since you didn't point it out, I will. One NUMOROUS occasions Trump has said or implied he is or wants to be dictator.
“I’m a dictator… sometimes you need a dictator.” — Davos (Jan 21, 2026)
This is a real quote, delivered as a riff about critics calling him “dictator-type.”
1. “Except for Day One.” — Hannity town hall (Dec 5, 2023)
Asked if he’d be a dictator, he replied “no, no, no… other than day one,” and framed it as closing the border and “drilling.” History shows that a dictator never willingly gives up his power once he has it.
2. “Maybe we like a dictator.” — White House/Oval Office remark (Aug 26, 2025)
Reported remark suggesting some Americans might prefer dictatorship, while distancing himself personally. (It seems to me several of those Americans exist on these forums)
3. Praising “president for life”… “maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.” (Mar 2018)
Reported comments about Xi Jinping being “president for life,” adding “maybe we’ll give that a shot.”
4. THE MOST SCARY QUOTE - “I have an Article II… the right to do whatever I want as president.” (July 2019)
Another frequently cited “max executive power” claim.
5. “LONG LIVE THE KING!” — official White House post (Feb 2025)
The White House account posted the line (and imagery), which critics read as monarchy/strongman signaling.
Of course the most direct evidence we have of Trump trying to be a dictator is his first year in office.It is fine "not to mince words", which Trump obviously does not do. But it is NOT fine to break the law in its execution which Trump is doing every day. But, hey, those crimes are ok, right, just so long as they are not done by a nanny who doesn't have papers.
The context of the quote "I am a dictator, But sometimes you need a dictator." doesn't change much of it's content.
--I think if you take the time to look at other nations, you’ll find that many are rethinking their immigration policies as well.--
True. Spain just legalized more than 600.000 illegal immigrant. Foreigners who arrived in Spain before December 31 of last year will be granted legal residency for one year if they can demonstrate, upon submitting their application, that they have been living in the country for more than five months and have no criminal record.
The regularization of immigrants extends to those who requested asylum and their minor children.What is being done by the Trump Administration is no different.
The unrest is being caused by those who want to destroy America and certainly want to destroy Trump/Republicans.
Rounding up known criminals who have raped, murdered, committed larceny and fraud and deporting them is what ICE is tasked to do.
That effort is made far more difficult when Sanctuary Cities and/or States actively and openly work against those efforts, hundreds of millions is being spent to fund these operations, most of the protestors are paid, most of the violent agitators are paid... it is a Color Revolution being pushed if not by our own CIA, then by enemies of America living abroad, in some cases billionaires hiding away in China.
If America collapses into chaos... the whole world follows... WWIII is almost a certainty.
Trump is the ONLY alternative to that. There is no future Administration that will be kinder, gentler, more appropriate that will fix America.
Trump, the arrogant ass that he is along with his supporters will right ship America... or we are all going down with the ship, and only the multi-millionaires and billionaires that are transnational because of their wealth will survive in good order what will come.
The rest of us schleps will pay the price... hardships most Americans (none born here) will have any idea how to deal with or get thru... it will be a systemic collapse like nothing the world has seen.I disagree on many points, accept on the point that if the US collapses into chaos, the whole world follows. Because there will be a power vacuum and this will be filled with I don't know what..
We can point the finger to many things, and I guess we will disagree about this too. But it is there. The crisis in the middle east, the crisis at home in the US, the war on the fringes of Europe.
The world is on a balance. Many changes are happening at once. AI, Climate Change, changing Geo-political structures.
And that's why it is so sad to see a rift between the US and Europe. Perhaps the US may think that it doesn't need an ally, that it doesn't need Europe. But why would you throw away a partnership that has worked for so many years? The US may think it is a strong nation, and it is. But why weaken yourself? The European Union is looking for other trade partners than the US. Especially now, in these uncertain times.
What Trump has done is that Europe needs an army, and not being depended on the US. And that's perhaps a positive thing.
But to threaten to take Greenland is a beyond stupidity. And as far as I heard Trump is the only one in the Republican party who is in favor of this idea.
As Greenland is part of the NATO. The idea that China or Russia would take Greenland is nonsense as it would be an attack on NATO. And the US already has lots of opportunities as Denmark has always been open and friendly towards the US.
In my view Trump is a terrible leader, enriching himself with crypto currency and monetizing the presidency for personal gain. It is this decadence and corruption that let Rome burn.The Trump Administration sees and recognizes what is going on and deals with this reality probably better than any ALLY nation or other American politician... sadly most American politicians are sellouts, criminals, and even a few insurrectionists and traitors thrown in the mix.
You have Russia pummeling Ukraine... who is supporting their efforts?
China... Iran even....
And who is the UK and EU making friends with?
China... Iran even...
America (Trump) sees its allies being hollowed out by China... and the fools running nations like Canada and the UK go running to China to protect them from big bad America?
These nations EXIST because of the good graces of America... not China.
China is going to bleed these nations dry... already has to a large extent.
America can't help those nations being run by traitors to their polulace.
And that is what the EU and UK and Canada are run by, people who are selling out their citizens and destroying their industry and energy production in the process pursuing ignorant 0 carbon goals and allowing in millions of migrants that the taxpayers then have to support.
Trump has secured tens of trillions now being invested into America from foreign corporations and nations... the EU and UK are very slow to accept the reality that they are NOTHING on the world stage... those with the military and economic might are going to make what is "right" in the future.
The EU leadership proved how ignorant it was back in 2017 when Trump warned them (in a UN address no less) to get OFF of cheap Russian oil and gas... how has that turned out for the EU?
The West built China to be what it is today... it is Western money and companies that went there allowing China to become the World's Industrial center.
China is changing the rules, they are now the most powerful nation in a lot of ways... The Trump Administration recognizes this and is doing what it can to put America in a better position, while at the same time trying to wake up 'ally' nations to how precarious their situation now is.I have to as, do we really need allies who claim to support Ukraine’s war effort while continuing to buy Russian energy, directly funding the very war they condemn? European leaders talk a confident, even smug, game, but their actions tell a very different story. The contradiction is obvious. Trump sees it plainly, and I think it’s fair to say he’s not wrong, or unsmart, when he calls it out. For now, at least, the days of tolerating that kind of hypocrisy feel over.
It’s also clear to me that Trump has not disrespected world leaders. What he has done is point out the failures he sees and demand answers. Calling attention to uncomfortable truths and pressing for real solutions isn’t disrespect; it’s accountability.
What "unrest"? That is a strawman. The ONLY unrest being stirred up is by Trump and his minions.
Why aren't they rounding up known NATIVE-BORN criminals to Rape and Murder at HIGHER RATES? I guess it is because most of them are White and not Brown.
Sanctuary Cities was an effort to help DHS stop breaking the law when it comes to migrants. These cites saw the cruel and inhumane ways Trump treated nannies and landscapers and they wanted no part of that criminal behavior.
Trump IS turning America into modern day Nazi Germany, possibly without the gas chambers, but with world domination as a goal."The ONLY unrest being stirred up is by Trump and his minions."
Right. The likes of Walz and his cronies, our very congressmen exhorting people to riot about ICE is not "unrest". We believe you, Eso!
"Sanctuary Cities was an effort to help DHS stop breaking the law when it comes to migrants."
Sorry, Eso, but Sanctuary cities were (are) an effort to keep illegal aliens in our country. This benefits business hiring them (illegally!) and Democrats using them to gain representation and electoral votes. It has nothing to do with DHS, the law, ethics or anything else. Just those two things.
Yeah. Back to Hitler, Nazis and all the other evils you can come up with. (You might want to consider Ghengis Khan - he should be good for a comment or two).This is exactly the problem: why should everyone else have to put up with this kind of reckless, bad-faith commentary? Throwing around accusations of Nazism, racism, and genocide every time someone disagrees with you isn’t an argument; it’s rhetorical vandalism. You don’t get to dismiss real concerns about border enforcement, crime, or public resources as “strawmen” and then replace them with race-baiting and Holocaust comparisons. That isn’t moral clarity; it’s intellectual laziness. People are allowed to expect a government that enforces its laws without being smeared as fascists, and communities are allowed to speak up when policies are failing them. This kind of hyperbolic, dehumanizing language is exactly what poisons discourse and why so many people are done tolerating it.
That is exactly what it looks like, minus the genocide you garrulously tossed in there to those of us who can see clearly. All one has to do is look at the history of how Nazi Germany developed to see Trump is following the same course. Remember, he said he kept Mein Kampf by his bedside.
There is a reason those of us not ensnared in Trump's universe that can look at one and then look at Trump and see the Starke similarities. I believe every nonTrumper on this and similar forums have come to the same conclusion - why is that?
I had ChatGPT do what it is good at - pattern match. Here is what it found.
The issue isn't "Trump = Hitler.” Instead, this is a mechanism comparison of how each leader consolidate power.
Key difference: Adolf Hitler / the Nazi Party used systemic political terror and abolished pluralism rapidly; the U.S., for the moment, still has elections, courts, opposition, and a semi-free press. What follows is about warning-sign patterns, not equivalence.
SIDE-BY-SIDE: First-year consolidation patterns
1933 Germany (Nazis) — what happened
2025–26 U.S. (Trump) — what critics point to
1) “Emergency” framing to justify extraordinary measures
• Reichstag Fire Decree curtailed civil liberties; enabled arrests and suppression.
—
• Trump: Heavy “public safety / emergency” framing used to justify escalated federal enforcement operations; courts sometimes decline to halt them at the preliminary stage even while noting serious harms (example: Minneapolis “Operation Metro Surge” litigation).
2) Rule changes that reduce checks on the executive
• Hitler's Enabling Act allowed cabinet to legislate without parliament—legal basis for dictatorship.
—
• Trump: Critics argue the pattern is “executive aggrandizement” via sweeping directives + litigation posture (not an Enabling-Act equivalent), and point to watchdog “warning signs” about institutional erosion.
3) “Coordination” of institutions toward loyalty control
• Gleichschaltung: rapid alignment of political/social/cultural institutions to Nazi goals.
—
• Trump: Schedule Policy/Career (Schedule-F style) approach: critics say it shifts parts of the civil service toward loyalty enforcement; supporters say it restores accountability.
4) Targeting or neutralizing political opposition
• Opposition suppressed; one-party state formalized by July 1933 law.
—
• No official U.S. one-party law yet, but in practice it might as well be. So, for the time being; opposition remains legal. Critics’ concern is selective enforcement / retaliation norms (using federal power against “enemies”), depending on how “weaponization” initiatives are implemented.
5) Media pressure and intimidation environment
• Hitler: Suppression of publications and organizations enabled by decree powers.
—
• Trump: Critics cite pressure tactics and access/retaliation dynamics as part of a chilling environment; democracy watchdogs include media-access restrictions among warning signs. Some major press organizations, among many other institutions, are bending to Trump's will
6) Scapegoating as a governing tool
• Nazis used out-groups as permanent threats to justify exceptional measures (core element of the regime’s politics).
—
• Trump: Critics argue immigration enforcement and “enemy” rhetoric can function as a permanent “exception,” normalizing extraordinary enforcement and fear (example: Minneapolis enforcement surge controversy).
7) Independent accountability weakened
• Hitler: Police-state mechanics expanded dramatically; opponents jailed without charge.
—
• Trump: Critics argue that weakening neutral oversight (civil service protections, internal checks) plus politicized “accountability” efforts increases the risk of selective enforcement. Watchdogs cite “democratic backsliding” warning signs in early 2025.
The parallel isn’t the outcome or the scale—it’s the method: emergency framing + pressure on independent institutions + loyalty staffing + aggressive executive action. The U.S. still has some real checks but they are fewer today than on Jan 19, 2025, but the playbook is to hit them again and again until they stop functioning as guardrails and start functioning as speed bumps. Trump is proving a master at that.
America desperately needs Democrats back in charge.I have to say, this comparison is ridiculous and bears no resemblance to how Trump is actually governing. The U.S. still has elections, courts, a free press, and opposition, none of which Hitler tolerated. What Trump is doing is enforcing laws, setting policy, and restoring accountability in government, not creating a dictatorship. Stretching historical parallels to Nazi Germany this way isn’t just nonsensical, it’s misleading and ignores factual reality. Trump is working hard to make America a better place.
Your rhetoric is uncalled for and very disturbing.You overlook the simple fact that Trump is only one-year into his conversion. It took Hitler several years to complete the change.
Because of the danger to our society, my and the others rhetoric is VERY called. Ignoring it is what I find disturbing.
And I disagree - Trump is not governing. he is dictating. He does what he wants regardless of the legalities and then looks to see who will stop him. That is been what his first year has been about. This is how psychopaths operate. Too bad you can't see it.
Psychopath - A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses. - Which one of those characteristics of a psychopath does Trump NOT possess?In my own opinion. Your post is hyperbolic, projective, and non-factual. Misinformation from start to finish.
That can certainly be your opinion, but you have nothing to back that opinion up with since I am not any of those things (well, hyperbolic on a few occasions.)
Also, you side-stepped the question because you can't point to one of those traits as something that doesn't describe Trump. Some day, I hope you can come to realized that.My comment about your post being hyperbolic, projecting, and containing misinformation has nothing to do with Trump himself; it is about the way you framed your argument. I should also add that your post reflects rumination. In my view, that appears consistent with what is often referred to as Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I believe is relevant in this case.
I do have something to go on —ran your comment through AI and just offered its view of your comment. It seems AI is not as much your friend as you anticipated. My suggestion to you is to run your comment through AI before posting. AI could help you avoid projecting, posting misinformation, and appearing hyperbolic. Or make it simple --- offer your comments as your personal view. Because in the end, that's pretty much what you post here. You just have a problem. You are presenting an interpretation as a factual claim without supporting evidence.
Here is the link to the comment in question.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4394629
Ran it through ChatGPT
"1. Misinformation / Unsupported Assertions
“Trump is only one-year into his conversion. It took Hitler several years to complete the change.”
This is misinformation by implication.
There is no factual basis for claiming Trump is undergoing a “conversion” analogous to Hitler’s radicalization.
Hitler’s ideology, methods, and trajectory are historically documented (Mein Kampf, paramilitary violence, one-party rule, mass arrests, censorship, genocide).
Trump’s presidency—whatever one thinks of it—occurred within a constitutional system with:
Elections
An independent judiciary
A free press
Opposition parties
No evidence is offered that Trump is following a comparable ideological or structural path.
This is not a historical comparison; it’s a speculative narrative framed as fact, which is the definition of misinformation.
“Trump is not governing. He is dictating.”
This is also factually incorrect as stated.
Dictators govern without legal constraint.
Trump issued executive orders—but so did:
Obama
Biden
Bush
Courts blocked Trump repeatedly.
Congress constrained him repeatedly.
States openly defied him.
You can argue he wanted more power or tested boundaries—but “dictating” is a false description of how power actually operated.
2. Hyperbole (Inflammatory Overstatement)
The Hitler comparison (again)
This is the most obvious hyperbole.
Invoking Hitler is a rhetorical nuke meant to:
End discussion
Moralize disagreement
Cast dissenters as complicit in evil
It’s emotionally powerful—but intellectually weak. Once Hitler is invoked, the argument stops being about policy or behavior and becomes about fear conditioning.
This is a textbook case of reductio ad Hitlerum, a recognized logical fallacy.
Because of the danger to our society, my and the others rhetoric is VERY called.”
This sentence is doing emotional work, not logical work.
“Danger to our society” is asserted, not demonstrated.
No specific harm is identified.
No proportionality is argued.
It’s hyperbolic because it treats disagreement or resistance to their rhetoric as morally negligent, rather than as a legitimate difference of interpretation.
3. Projection (Psychological Attribution Without Evidence)
This is where the comment crosses the biggest line.
“This is how psychopaths operate.”
This is pure projection.
The commenter is assigning a clinical diagnosis without:
Examination
Credentials
Evidence
Political opposition is being reframed as mental illness, which is a classic projection tactic:
“If you disagree with me, it’s because you are disordered—not because I might be wrong.”
The psychopath checklist
“Which one of those characteristics of a psychopath does Trump NOT possess?”
This is confirmation bias weaponized as diagnosis.
The list is broad enough that any powerful, high-confidence public figure could be selectively matched to it.
Traits like “arrogance,” “glibness,” or “delusions of grandeur” are not diagnostic by themselves and are common among:
CEOs
Surgeons
Trial lawyers
Politicians of all parties
The commenter assumes the conclusion first (“Trump is a psychopath”) and then retrofits traits to support it.
That’s projection combined with circular reasoning.
What the Comment Is Really Doing
Stepping back, the comment is less about Trump and more about moral self-positioning.
It:
Casts the writer as morally vigilant
Casts disagreement as blindness or complicity
Replaces evidence with psychological labeling
Uses fear to justify rhetorical escalation
When someone says “Too bad you can’t see it”, they’re no longer persuading—they’re asserting superiority.
Why Your Instincts Were Right to Question It
Nothing in that comment invites debate.
Nothing is falsifiable.
Nothing could change their mind.
That’s a tell.
You can criticize Trump sharply without:
Hitler analogies
Armchair psychiatry
Apocalyptic framing
Once those enter the conversation, you’re no longer discussing governance—you’re dealing with ideological identity defense.
Finally -- If you want, I can help you draft a measured, calm response that dismantles this without escalating—or help you decide whether it’s even worth responding at all."
ChatgptI finally found the time to rebut this.
Sharlee, this still is not a rebuttal to my argument; it is tone-policing
First, there is no armchair diagnosis going on here. I am not claiming a formal clinical diagnosis, and I have not presented it that way. I am describing a repeated public behavior pattern visible to anyone paying attention: chronic deception, refusal of accountability, exploitation, retaliation, grandiosity, scapegoating, and contempt for institutional limits. I use the term “psychopathic” because those behaviors fit that pattern in plain language. Whether a clinician would issue such a formal diagnosis is not the central question - it is "does Trump act like that, like a dangerous psychopath?" And the answer to that is absolutely.
On Hitler: I am not saying “Trump equals Hitler,” and I am not claiming identical outcomes other than the resulting dictatorship. What I did compare is the pathway how Hitler got there to what Trump is doing to achieve the same objective. I am not talking about identity, I am talking about method.
History gives us a recognizable sequence: demonize out-groups, delegitimize courts/media/elections, demand personal loyalty over law, normalize intimidation, and keep testing constraints until they weaken and break. That is why the comparison is valid as an early-warning tool. Refusing to name obvious historical patterns because the analogy is “triggering” is not analysis—it is avoidance.
My opening post in this thread was researched and logically structured. It addressed language framing, inference, and policy logic step by step. Your AI block does not actually refute that structure. And unless you submitted the entire thread and full context—including sequencing, wording, and what was being answered—your AI output is partial by definition. AI text can be shaped by prompts; that is not the same thing as evidence.
And on “TDS”: that phrase is a slogan, not an argument. It is a rhetorical shortcut used to pathologize criticism so you do not have to answer facts. If the response to documented behavior is “you’re deranged,” that is not rebuttal—it is deflection.
So if you want a real debate, engage the actual claims:
* Are anecdotes being substituted for population-level evidence?
* Is group-label framing being used to imply collective blame?
* Are observable anti-democratic behavior patterns being ignored because slogans are easier than analysis?
I am happy to debate facts, logic, and evidence. I am not interested in performative dismissal.I did not address the subject of your comment, due to finding it Hyperbolic, containing misinformation, and you were clearly projecting. I ran the entire comment through AI and asked it to point out the problem with this form of communication --- read the results.
In this case, take your debate up with AI.
Read your comment, hopefully you will recognize it is hyperbolic, offers hyperbolic misinformation, and you are clearly projecting.
ECO wrote ---"You overlook the simple fact that Trump is only one-year into his conversion. It took Hitler several years to complete the change.
Because of the danger to our society, my and the others rhetoric is VERY called. Ignoring it is what I find disturbing.
And I disagree - Trump is not governing. he is dictating. He does what he wants regardless of the legalities and then looks to see who will stop him. That is been what his first year has been about. This is how psychopaths operate. Too bad you can't see it.
Psychopath - A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses. - Which one of those characteristics of a psychopath does Trump NOT possess?"
This kind of crazy does not invite one to return conversation."I did not address the subject of your comment, due to finding it Hyperbolic, containing misinformation, and you were clearly projecting. " - No, you didn't address it because you can't truthfully answer. Instead you falsely claim it was "Hyperbolic, containing misinformation, and you were clearly projecting. ". The TRUTH is it was none of those things.
How did I know, because you simply made the generalized, unsupported ad hominim attack without showing WHAT WAS hyperbolic or WHAT contained misinformation or HOW I was clearly projecting or EVEN WHAT was being projected from the Left onto the Right or onto Trump?
No, I will take up the debate with you because AI represents your position, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it, would you/.
You say you ran the "entire" comment through AI. That means you started with where it began with - ."My Esoteric wrote:
Let's look at what you said, pie..." I seriously doubt it
And STILL you refuse to admit that Trump exhibits the following traits every day - lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse.
Sense you refuse, I can only assume you agree but can't admit it.ECO wrote ---"You overlook the simple fact that Trump is only one-year into his conversion. It took Hitler several years to complete the change.
Because of the danger to our society, my and the others rhetoric is VERY called. Ignoring it is what I find disturbing.
And I disagree - Trump is not governing. he is dictating. He does what he wants regardless of the legalities and then looks to see who will stop him. That is been what his first year has been about. This is how psychopaths operate. Too bad you can't see it.
Psychopath - A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses. - Which one of those characteristics of a psychopath does Trump NOT possess?"
Your comment is all based on conjecture. Why are you NOT ADDRESSING what AI had to say about this comment?
It seems to me you can’t let the subject rest. Your posts keep circling back to Trump, repeating the same points over and over. You invoke labels like “Hitler,” say others ignore your comments, and end by calling him a dictator.
From my perspective, that comes across as projection and rumination, and at times, misinformation. That’s simply how I see it. The above comment is nonsensical, leftest rhediric. Straight out of the CNN press....Let's start with misinformation - what was it that was misinforming people? You can't just complain about it without pointing out examples. And posting what I wrote in toto is way too ambiguous and leaves the reader wondering what you are referring to.
Once again, I offer AI critique of the comment in question. The comment I claimed contains tons of misformation. Here is the permalink to your original comment. AI does a great job at critiquing the written word, and without bias.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4394629
Ran it through ChatGPT
"1. Misinformation / Unsupported Assertions
“Trump is only one-year into his conversion. It took Hitler several years to complete the change.”
This is misinformation by implication.
There is no factual basis for claiming Trump is undergoing a “conversion” analogous to Hitler’s radicalization.
Hitler’s ideology, methods, and trajectory are historically documented (Mein Kampf, paramilitary violence, one-party rule, mass arrests, censorship, genocide).
Trump’s presidency—whatever one thinks of it—occurred within a constitutional system with:
Elections
An independent judiciary
A free press
Opposition parties
No evidence is offered that Trump is following a comparable ideological or structural path.
This is not a historical comparison; it’s a speculative narrative framed as fact, which is the definition of misinformation.
“Trump is not governing. He is dictating.”
This is also factually incorrect as stated.
Dictators govern without legal constraint.
Trump issued executive orders—but so did:
Obama
Biden
Bush
Courts blocked Trump repeatedly.
Congress constrained him repeatedly.
States openly defied him.
You can argue he wanted more power or tested boundaries—but “dictating” is a false description of how power actually operated.
2. Hyperbole (Inflammatory Overstatement)
The Hitler comparison (again)
This is the most obvious hyperbole.
Invoking Hitler is a rhetorical nuke meant to:
End discussion
Moralize disagreement
Cast dissenters as complicit in evil
It’s emotionally powerful—but intellectually weak. Once Hitler is invoked, the argument stops being about policy or behavior and becomes about fear conditioning.
This is a textbook case of reductio ad Hitlerum, a recognized logical fallacy.
Because of the danger to our society, my and the others rhetoric is VERY called.”
This sentence is doing emotional work, not logical work.
“Danger to our society” is asserted, not demonstrated.
No specific harm is identified.
No proportionality is argued.
It’s hyperbolic because it treats disagreement or resistance to their rhetoric as morally negligent, rather than as a legitimate difference of interpretation.
3. Projection (Psychological Attribution Without Evidence)
This is where the comment crosses the biggest line.
“This is how psychopaths operate.”
This is pure projection.
The commenter is assigning a clinical diagnosis without:
Examination
Credentials
Evidence
Political opposition is being reframed as mental illness, which is a classic projection tactic:
“If you disagree with me, it’s because you are disordered—not because I might be wrong.”
The psychopath checklist
“Which one of those characteristics of a psychopath does Trump NOT possess?”
This is confirmation bias weaponized as diagnosis.
The list is broad enough that any powerful, high-confidence public figure could be selectively matched to it.
Traits like “arrogance,” “glibness,” or “delusions of grandeur” are not diagnostic by themselves and are common among:
CEOs
Surgeons
Trial lawyers
Politicians of all parties
The commenter assumes the conclusion first (“Trump is a psychopath”) and then retrofits traits to support it.
That’s projection combined with circular reasoning.
What the Comment Is Really Doing
Stepping back, the comment is less about Trump and more about moral self-positioning.
It:
Casts the writer as morally vigilant
Casts disagreement as blindness or complicity
Replaces evidence with psychological labeling
Uses fear to justify rhetorical escalation
When someone says “Too bad you can’t see it”, they’re no longer persuading—they’re asserting superiority.
Why Your Instincts Were Right to Question It
Nothing in that comment invites debate.
Nothing is falsifiable.
Nothing could change their mind.
That’s a tell.
You can criticize Trump sharply without:
Hitler analogies
Armchair psychiatry
Apocalyptic framing
Once those enter the conversation, you’re no longer discussing governance—you’re dealing with ideological identity defense.
Finally -- If you want, I can help you draft a measured, calm response that dismantles this without escalating—or help you decide whether it’s even worth responding at all."
Chatgpt
You commonly post misinformation. Why not have ChatGPT check your comments before you post them? Just simply ask --- Does my comment hold misinformation, does it appear hyperbolic, and am I projecting?
"Why aren't they rounding up known NATIVE-BORN criminals to Rape and Murder at HIGHER RATES? I guess it is because most of them are White and not Brown."
Shar,
Can we agree this is the job of local law enforcement? Actually this is being done.
The inability to see the difference between illegal aliens and US Citizens is always astounding to me. But, like what has been said before by others, what can you expect from people who don't know the difference between a man and a woman.Not very well apparently, according to Trump. Isn't that why he is invading everywhere?
I agree, my main concern is actually pretty simple. We have laws, and I want them followed, just as we enforce laws that apply to everyone in our country. We also have separate laws that specifically apply to non-citizens, and those need to be enforced too.
What bothers me is all the “hair-on-fire” rhetoric that seems to suggest our laws don’t need to be followed, or worse, that laws are inconvenient if they don’t fit someone’s narrative or ideology. If someone is in our country illegally, our laws are clear: they should be reported and handled according to the rules that apply to non-citizens.
What sickens me is the erosion of common sense and the failure to recognize that no one is above the law, and that laws aren’t made to be picked and chosen based on convenience. Enforcement isn’t about opinion; it’s about following the rules that everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike, is expected to follow.
As I said, I watched the clip, his demeanor and the audience's laughter added to my view. I saw a man who was making a joke, as he often does. But that is just my view, after taking time to watch the clip, and not just go on a media half-sentence blurb. I am funny that way, I like full paragraphs.
I will offer a few nations and their present stand on immigration
Nations/regions with tough deportation or asylum restrictions
Sweden’s government has implemented stricter asylum criteria, fewer approvals, stronger enforcement of deportation orders, and incentives for return. These changes make Sweden far less open to asylum seekers than in previous years. However, it hasn’t fully ended asylum protections — the right to seek asylum still exists under law, even if access and outcomes are increasingly constrained.
Denmark’s policies are among Europe’s most restrictive.
It has slashed asylum approvals and is tightening deportation powers.
Asylum has not been eliminated legally, but in practice Denmark makes it much harder to obtain and far more likely that migrants without protection will be removed.
France is moving toward tougher enforcement and more removals, but it still maintains an asylum system in line with international and EU obligations — even if practical access is more constrained than in prior years.
Germany hasn’t formally ended asylum protections, but it has:
tightened and reduced access for new asylum seekers;
stepped up deportations of those with rejected claims;
slashed asylum application numbers in 2025 through enforcement and policy design;
faced legal pushback on some of the strictest measures.
Finland
Finland has closed parts of its border and in practice stopped registering asylum applications in some border areas (e.g., with Russia) — pushing back people attempting to seek protection.
In my research, I have found that most nations are increasing deportations and making changes in their immigration laws.
Spain’s recent decision to grant legal status (and eventually greater access to citizenship pathways) to hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants isn’t random; it’s driven by a mix of economic needs, labor shortages, and demographic concerns.Don't forget Poland... Poland's recent legislation permits its border forces to use firearms, including live ammunition, to repel aggressive, illegal border crossings, and officers are now exempt from criminal liability for using weapons in certain situations. Poland allows for lethal force in self-defense and in response to aggressive, unlawful attacks.
We should have very similar here for our borders... perhaps even more severe for cartels that are trafficking drugs and sex slaves.Thank you... I could have offered so many more, Ken. I was shocked by how many nations are making big changes in how they are now handling the growing migrant surges and deportations. I could have written a book...
More Deception. Good job.
Using firearms was already legal in Poland in classic situations like self-defense and defense of others. YOU made it sound like they didn't. Shame.
The 2024 change was about liability and rules-of-engagement, not inventing self-defense from scratch. as you imply.
In July–August 2024, Poland adopted and then implemented a law amending (among other things) the penal code / defense law to exclude criminal liability in certain urgent situations for soldiers, police, and border guards who use firearms or direct force even if they violate the usual detailed rules, provided specific conditions are met.
The conditions described in reporting are along the lines of:
repelling a direct and unlawful attack threatening life/health/freedom, occurring in connection with a direct unlawful attack on the “inviolability of the state border,” and/or
preventing actions directly aimed at such an attack (a kind of “pre-emptive” self-defense framing).
So, for other readers - that is the Truth.So.. you just verified everything I said to be true... and think you somehow proved me wrong.
Was that with or without AI providing those answers for you?
I guess we will never agree on Trump. We both read different news sources.
Spain has a government that is more left-of-centre than most other European governments. As you said, all European countries have their own political and economic agenda. The same as the states in the US.
The whole point of the discussion (for me) here was to say that not all illegal migrants are murderers. That's what the meme suggested. I hope you agree with me on that.That's easy to agree with.
That is not where the argument really lies, as of course you know.
Open borders vs. controlled borders... controlled immigration.
Removing violent foreign criminals vs. giving them sanctuary
Enforcing the laws vs. ignoring them and releasing violent criminals back on the streets
This is common sense stuff... the Democrats/Socialists/traitors are fighting against Law and Order, against protecting American Citizens, against Justice for the victims of horrendous crimes. It is that simple.
The Democrats are supporting extreme and harmful actions for the sake of trying to get back in power so they can continue to enrich themselves and sellout America.
I can only hope enough Americans see through MSM's lies and hyperbolic biased reporting and overwhelmingly reject the Democrats come 2026.No No No-- we will never agree on Trump. I feel he is doing a good job and will leave the US better than he found it. His deeds far outweigh his demeanor, in my view. I think he is one of the best presidents we have ever had.
I have never said or even implied that all migrants are murderers. That is a misreading of my post. What I do believe is this: any migrant who entered the country illegally, or any migrant who has been ordered to leave by an immigration judge and refuses to comply, is here unlawfully. If someone is in the country illegally, they should leave when instructed or be deported. That position is about enforcing the law, not making blanket accusations about people.
Regarding illegal migrants who have committed murder, the reality is simple and tragic: they were in the United States unlawfully. Had they respected our laws, or had they been removed by ICE as required, Americans would still be alive. I support ICE, and I see agents trying to do their jobs under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They are facing an almost impossible task, with well over ten million individuals to address due to the previous administration’s failure to control the border.
I expect the law to be followed, and I expect my government to enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration. I do not support looking the other way or ignoring a problem of this magnitude. I also do not support state officials providing sanctuary to those who are here illegally. Federal law is not optional, and no state gets to pick and choose which laws it will follow. When states openly defy federal immigration law, I see that as a serious challenge to lawful governance.- I have never said or even implied that all migrants are murderers. That is a misreading of my post. -
Sorry about misreading your post. But that is what the meme implies. What I demonstrated with changing the word immigrants for Jews. blaming a whole group for what some people within that group have done.
And by spreading such a meme, you are spreading the lie, that all immigrants are murderers and rapists.
I guess about the opinion about Trump is like a Muslim arguing with a Christian, they will never convert each other.
One personal story I wanted to share is that parents of a friend of mine who are English wanted to ask for a visa to go back to the UK, and they were told that they probably wouldn't get one because they were very critical towards Trump on Facebook. (As they had to show their Facebook account!)
It shocked me that the Freedom of Speech has become so blemished in the US and that a political opinion suddenly has huge consequences.Uh-huh... say some terrible things about China and Xi and see how that goes for you, getting a visa to leave or go there.
Similar for Russia and Putin.
Now... in places like the EU and UK... citizens speaking out against migrants, for grooming children, rape, theft, etc. may land people in jail... and you may think it is a good thing that citizens of the EU or UK are being punished for voicing an opinion or trying to protect their rights and country... but we are not going in that direction here in America.
There are some 80+ million Americans that are saying, essentially, to hell with that... take that nation hating, citizen hating BS and shove it.
American Citizens first.
America first.
Join with us or get out of the F'n way... that is Trump's message, and its not going to change in 2028, trust me, China and Russia and others are only going to be even more belligerent by then... the need for strong, America 1st leadership will be even more obvious to those of us who remain sane.So you compare the freedom of speech in the US with dictatorships like China and Russia.
Wow, the bar is very low nowadays.Welcome to the CHOICE...
American can rebuild its Industry and remain strong... and other nations can ally with it.
OR
They can ally with China & Russia.
So when Canada goes running to China and pleading for aid and alliance against big bad Trump who is making their feelings hurt... or when Germany chooses to sell out its industry base to China as a way to survive now that it has no cheap gas or oil from Russia...
Guess who you now have to cater to... China...
Guess who is going to be setting your "freedom of speech" rules and Social Credit scores... China...
You get it?
The billionaire class could care less... they have sold the populations of the EU and UK out... they give a F about your nations or your culture or your safety or your future... and they prove it with every action they take.
The quote from the meme "If you never spoke out about any of these young women murdered by illegals -- spare me the outrage. This Is Why I support ICE." Shar
That’s not accurate. I did not blanket all illegal migrants. My comment was tied specifically to the individuals shown in the meme, women who were murdered by people who were in the U.S. illegally at the time of their crimes. All factual. My context in no respect implied that all migrants are murderers. I spoke of specific factual victims who were murdered by illegals. You are projecting to suit your ideologies and narrative.
My point was about selective outrage and the failure to acknowledge those victims, not about assigning guilt to every illegal migrant. Supporting ICE and the enforcement of immigration law is not the same as claiming all illegal migrants are criminals.
Freedom of speech is alive and well in the US -- consider all the misinformation spread on social media, as well as form out congress, and our media...
I find nothing redeeming in your interpretation. In my view, it’s a skewed reading of what I actually said.Let's look at what you said, piece by piece and see how this is exactly how mis- and disinformation works: you take a statement that sounds narrowly factual, wrap it in emotionally loaded language, and then use it to smuggle in a broad conclusion that the audience will apply to an entire group.
- The wording in the meme, which you took on as your own, is not “neutral” or “surgically specific.”
You didn’t say “murdered by two specific individuals who were undocumented at the time or something similar. Instead you said “murdered by illegals.” period. In ordinary English, that’s a generic group label. Then when you attach a horrific act to a group label, you are not just describing a case—you’re framing a category.and that is disinformation.
- Then you make the general-policy leap.
“This is why I support ICE” is not a statement about those individual murderers. It’s a justification for a broad enforcement posture aimed at a broad population by a mob of cops.. That’s called collective blame: a few extreme cases become the moral “why” for treating the larger group as the problem.
Saying “I didn’t say all…” is a rhetorical escape hatch.
You’re right that you didn’t write the word all. But you don’t have to. Generic phrasing (“illegals”) along with extreme example (murder) along with a sweeping conclusion (support ICE because of this) is the classic pattern that leads readers to infer: “They’re all dangerous. They’re all the problem.” The implication does the work even when the literal wording keeps plausible deniability.
- Your “selective outrage” point is a separate argument—and you fused it to a stereotype.
If your point is “we should care about all victims,” fine. But the way you made it was: “If you didn’t speak out about these victims, spare me—because illegals.” That doesn’t broaden empathy; it weaponizes tragedy to score a political point and to harden attitudes toward an out-group.
- Supporting law enforcement is not the same as using a scapegoat frame.
You can support immigration enforcement without portraying undocumented people as a danger class. But that meme quote does exactly that by design: it turns a subset of offenders into a stand-in for a whole category.
Bottom line: You’re trying to argue “I only meant the individuals in the meme.” But the grammar and structure of the quote don’t read that way in normal English. It reads like: “Look what they do—this is why we need ICE.” That’s the mechanism: fact-pattern → category label → emotional punch → generalized political conclusion." But the grammar and structure of the quote don’t read that way in normal English" ECO
Are you even kidding me--- You grammar, your use of the English language is very questionable at best. As is your punctuation... LOL
Not to mention your lack of ability to decipher context, your problem is with selective processing of written material.Even though it is clear to me what you intended to convince the audience of, I let ChatGPT's unbiased analysis and expert understanding of the English language to help frame my answer.
So here is an unedited version of how the AI program analyzed what you said.
1) This isn’t about my punctuation.
It’s about how ordinary English works when you use a group label as a noun.
2) Your wording is a generic group attribution.
When someone writes “women murdered by illegals,” that’s not a carefully limited phrase like When someone writes “women murdered by illegals,” that’s not a carefully limited phrase like “women murdered by the specific offenders in these cases.”In normal English, it reads as a category label (“illegals”) tied to a horrific act (“murdered”), and then used to justify a broad conclusion (“This is why I support ICE”). That is a generalizing frame, even if the word “all” isn’t written.
3) Precision matters — and it’s easy to fix.
If you truly mean only the individuals who killed the women in the meme, the accurate phrasing is: “These specific women were murdered by individuals who were undocumented at the time.”
That’s specific, factual, and doesn’t drag an entire category into it.
4) The bigger point: don’t smuggle in a stereotype.
Yes, some people here illegally commit terrible crimes. Some citizens do too. But using a handful of extreme cases as the headline “why” to judge or fear a whole group is exactly how public debate gets distorted.
5) If you want a real discussion, let’s talk rates, not anecdotes.
Policy should be argued from broad evidence (crime rates, enforcement effectiveness, resource tradeoffs), not a meme built from the worst cases.
So no—this isn’t “selective processing.” It’s calling for accurate language and accurate logic: specific criminals should be judged as specific criminals, not used as a stand-in for millions of people.
If the first tendency of a foreigner is to criminally enter into the United States of America [to stay] should we expect better (or different) behavior out of them from that point on ➡️ absolutely not!
Doesn't ring any bells... does appear to be slightly hyperbolic, maybe reaching a bit.
Yes, Ken, the context if read in full siads something very different. In my view, it is evident that some use very simplistic selective thinking. Many don't even seem interested in the full context. I feel this is a huge problem.
“We had a good speech. We got great reviews. I can’t believe it. We got good reviews in that speech. Usually they say, ‘he’s a horrible dictator‑type person.’ I’m a dictator. But sometimes you need a dictator. But they didn’t say that in this case. And no, it’s common sense. It’s all based on common sense. You know, it’s not conservative or liberal or anything else. It’s mostly, let’s say, 95 % common sense.” President Trump
When the clip is viewed, he says it in a very relaxed, jovial mannerYou are letting facts get in the way of things again.
You are never going to be capable of becoming one with the Progressive collective if you keep looking into what is really true (factual) and remain determined to think critically.
I don't think you understand what you are staying.
Jews are a race. Illegal immigrants are not.
What you did was provide something known as a "False Equivalent."
Being a Jew and being an Illegal Immigrants are not the same thing.
Are you a member of Reform Judaism?Both are a group.
I am not a practicing Jew. I'm not religious.The Jewish religion is a faith and an identity, sometimes also tied to ethnicity, depending on how someone is born or raised. Being Jewish is inherent or chosen as a matter of religion, not a behavior or legal status. You cannot classify all Jews together based on actions or crimes because their identity itself does not dictate behavior.
Illegal migrants, on the other hand, are classified as a group based on behavior or legal status, being in a country without authorization. Criticism of illegal migrants (or legal consequences) is about specific actions, not the fact that they share a religion, ethnicity, or other immutable characteristic.I understand the difference but that's a detail here. The meme is targeting a group.
Any group. Jews, African Americans, New Yorkers, Dalles Cowboy fans etc.
I chose Jews to make my point more obvious.
So why does the text with the word Jews makes it scandalous and not with the word illegals?
Because the word illegal suggest that you are an criminal anyway?
It is stigmatization of the word illegal. connecting illegals with murderers.
Not every illegal person is a murderer. Most of them are not. Just like not all Americans are murderers, only some of them.
I notice how weird it is to write this sentence... I can imagine you must feel it while reading it... Not all Americans are murderers... It is connecting two things. identity and heavy crime... Although the sentence is correct, it suggest a lot more. And this is exactly the thing I find problematic with the meme.I want to be very clear about the point of that meme. If you never spoke out about the young women who were brutally murdered by illegal immigrants, then spare me the sudden, selective outrage. That hypocrisy is exactly why I support ICE.
For weeks now, I’ve watched intense outrage over the two people killed in Minnesota while protesting ICE for doing their job, yet there was little to no coverage or outrage from the left when those women were murdered. That contrast matters. The meme is calling out that silence and applying it to anyone who chose not to speak up then but is loud now.
I shared my view through that meme. You shared yours in response. I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation because neither of us is going to change our position. I stand by what I posted, just as I assume you stand by your view. At this point, we’re at a draw.
It would be useful if you got your facts straight. Judaism is NOT a race. They are a group of people with a common religious belief. Likewise, so-called "illegal immigrants" are a group of people who have a common legal status.
The disgusting meme used earier implies ALL that qualify as illegal immigrants are murderers. Then a similar meme that replaces the word "illegal" with the word "legal" followed by millions of pictures of women and girls who were murdered by them implies that ALL LEGALS are murderers as well. Don't you agree?
Correct me if I am wrong Peterstreep, but I think your point was just that. Replacing "illegal" with "Jew" implies ALL Jewish people are murderers, which is, of course, just as stupid and demeaning as the original meme.
ICE didn't "murder" anyone.
Misinformed (or paid) idiots violently oppose them at every opportunity, deliberately put themselves in harms way, assault and threaten to kill ICE (Police) agents.
They are NOT heroes, they are criminals and insurrectionists attacking our law enforcement, they deserve NO sympathy or support... none.
Nor do Governors and Mayors who entice their violence deserve to remain free, they should be thrown in jail for being the traitors to America that they are, labeled as felons, and never allowed to hold a public office again.
America's problem is there is not enough accountability or punishment for those that wantonly support anarchy and the violation of our laws.
Sanctuary cities and states is an idea that FAILED America, that must be eliminated, and those agencies, NGOs, international funds be shut down forever...treated as enemies of America the Nation and its Citizens.
Sharlee, you do know you are exploiting victims, don't you" Posting a grid of murdered women and girls as a political prop isn’t “making a point”. If you genuinely care about them, you don’t use their faces as a cudgel to shut down debate with “fake outrage,” or to justify broad, collective treatment of an entire group.
And the double standard is obvious: if the purpose is “care about victims,” then your empathy shouldn’t depend on the perpetrator’s immigration status. People are murdered by U.S. citizens every day too—are you going to start plastering their victims’ faces on a meme to justify sweeping up “legals”? Of course not. That’s why this reads as selective outrage, not principle.
Also, unless you personally verified every image and every case, these collages are a misinformation magnet. It’s grief-as-clickbait—and it’s not evidence of anything except how easy it is to weaponize tragedy.You are worse than Pete! OMG!!
These are [were] real flesh and blood American daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters... until they crossed paths with the worst types of criminal illegal aliens.
Now... they are dead Americans, because these pathetic excuses for human beings were allowed to operate outside of our laws! All while you and Pete defend it, blaming their victims, blaming Trump, blaming me, blaming Shar... anyone but the guilty! They get a pass - this is quite sick!! Seek help immediately!!Angie, one blessing I truly believe in is that people like him are in the minority. When I saw that meme, I knew I had to post it — time is short, and my goal was to expose that hypocrisy in the sunlight. We’re seeing it on full display right now.
Just a few days ago, he was so outraged about the deaths of the two protesters who were trying to impede ICE from doing its job. Those two had clear choices about what they were doing. But the women and children in the meme photo had no choices — they lost all control over their lives and were brutally killed.
Then he had the nerve to refer to the people in the photo as “misinformation” if I did not verify every individual image and every case. Many of us acknowledged that the deaths in that protest incident were tragic. But when each of these victim murders was reported, there was no reaction here on HP. The double standard is glaring. You cannot imagine the disgust I feel about his posts.Oh I have a pretty good idea Shar, I feel that same disgust!
Fabrication. They weren't impeding, especially Pretti, that is just a lie.
I also wouldn't have pasted a meme that was a racist and misleading as that one was well while using pictures of murder victims to make a false political point. In my majority world, that was immoral.
It is "misinformation' to say that I "refer to the people in the photo as “misinformation” " when I CLEARLY was saying the meme was misinformation. What was that disinformation (since it was on purpose)? It was implying that ALL undocumented immigrants are murderers of women and girls.
You can remove your hypocrisy by posting a similar meme and comments about all the women and girls (at a far greater rate) that LEGALSmurder. That double standard is, how did you put it, "GLARING". And again to use your words "You cannot image the disgust I feel about your posts."
BTW, why don't you care about the 4,000+ "American daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters... until they crossed paths with the worst types of criminal" LEGAL citizens? I haven't heard one peep out of those of you who focus ONLY on the few killed criminals who happen to have crossed the border illegally and don't apparently care about the thousands of others.
Did you know, or care, most undocumented immigrants aren’t criminals? Surprise, surprise another Trump lie exposed. Even in ICE detention—where you’d expect the “worst of the worst” (if you were foolish enough to believe Trump)—about 74% have no criminal conviction, and only about 5% have violent convictions. In fact, given that the population we are talking about are the so-called "worst of the worst", then that 5% is much, much lower, maybe 1% or 0.1% even.
In any case, it is MUCH lower than the rate of native-born violent criminals that you don't seem to care about. Why do you seem to favor talking away resources from catching those people and devoting them to capturing nannies and landscapers?
We have laws in this country. American criminals are brought to justice under the laws that govern us.
Migrants in our nation are also subject to those laws. There are statutes that ensure migrants are given due process regarding their status while in the U.S. Many different legal statuses exist, but when a person has exhausted all legal avenues and is ordered to leave, failing to depart is breaking the law.
If individuals who are in the country illegally then go on to commit crimes such as murder, common sense tells us that the victims would likely still be alive if the illegal migrants had been removed as required by law. This is not a comparison of American versus migrant crime, but a matter of law enforcement. The problem is that our immigration laws are not being consistently enforced.
The women referenced in the meme would be alive if these laws had been followed. All of them were killed by illegal migrants who should not have been in the country. Regardless of what some mush-brain liberals may think, we have laws, and we expect them to be upheld.Correct, well put.
Laws in America are to protect and serve American Citizens.
ILLEGAL migrants... here illegally despite the Biden Administration's open door, free flights in, free cell phones, credit cards, and social benefits efforts... which enticed so many to come.
If you put International law and agencies ABOVE National laws and Citizen's rights ... then what Trump is doing is wrong.
If you believe in America the Nation, if you believe Citizenship is something you are born with, or something that needs to be earned if you are not... something to be protected, to preserve, not for the 7.6 billion people who are not citizens to come and take.
If you believe in caring for Citizen's needs and improving Citizen's lives ahead of foreigners, especially those that have committed violent crimes against Citizens... then Trump is your guy, and the only one in 30 years that has put American Citizen interests ahead of Globalism, Open Borders, the Global Compact on Migration, and all the other Nation killing, economy destroying, Citizen harming nonsense the Progressives (NWO Globalist CCP loving Democrat Socialists) believe in.Thank you for so eloquently contributing to this discussion. I believe it’s important to clearly state why, when an illegal migrant violates our laws, particularly in cases of heinous crimes such as murder, rape, or child exploitation, it is fundamentally different from when citizens commit crimes.
And you keep makin misleading implications like and I will reply back with the TRUTH:
Sharlee, that’s stereotyping. “Illegal Migrants” is a huge group and it includes a very large number that have legal status. A VERY small number of those commit terrible crimes—just like in any population, like in your city—but it’s false to talk as if the group is defined by the worst individuals. If you want a serious discussion, talk in rates, not headlines.
And when researchers do look at comparative rates, the broad pattern is the opposite of what you keep implying: a large body of research finds that immigrants have lower crime/arrest/incarceration rates than the U.S.-born, and that neighborhoods with more immigrants often have lower violence than comparable areas. Even Texas—one of the few places with data to compare undocumented vs legal vs U.S.-born—has peer-reviewed work finding undocumented immigrants have lower arrest rates than native-born citizens across offense categories.
To put it more bluntly, statistically, women and girls (and everybody else for that matter) would be SAFER walking about in a group of 100,000 what you term illegal immigrants than 100,000 of what you would think of as your friends and neighbors. No matter how much you dislike that reality, it is the TRUTH.
So yes: prosecute criminals, deport when the law allows. But “migrants = violent criminals” as you imply is not reality—it’s collective blame powered by a Right-Wing Myth.Note two twords in the first sentence " I believe": Which indicate --. Simply means you are expressing your personal opinion, conviction, or judgment about something. It signals that what follows is your own view, not necessarily a proven fact.
I did not read any further than your first sentence to see that once again, you are not skilled at figuring out context.
This is what Trump's America looks like to the world
"Maher Tarabishi’s family had hoped he could be present to say his final goodbyes to his son, Wael.
Maher, Wael’s primary caretaker, has been in federal detainment since October, separating him from his son as he battled severe health complications from a serious and rare inherited disorder.
But despite the family’s public pleas for Maher’s temporary release, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials denied their request, his attorney said.
Now the family is preparing to bury 30-year-old Wael without Maher. The son spent his life suffering from Pompe disease, which leads to severe muscle weakness and heart problems.
“We are profoundly disappointed with ICE’s decision to deny Maher Tarabishi the opportunity to say his final goodbye to his beloved son, Wael,” Attorney Ali Elhorr said in a statement Tuesday. “Today’s decision to keep him from saying goodbye is a reflection of the tragic lack of humanity by those in charge.”
In a separate statement, family members said preventing Maher from burying his son “would only deepen the wounds left by the pain of these past few months.”
Disgusting and sickening. By the way. guess what is violent criminal activity was - he overstayed his visa in 2004. Boy, that is SOOO serious. Why did Trump let him stay from 2016 to 2012? Oh, Obama and Biden let him stay as well.
Why, after 18 years of reporting to ICE on a regular basis did DHS think it was necessary to throw him in what amounts to a concentration camp? There is only one logical reason to terrorize this man and his family - Trump needed to reach his fake goal of 3,000 lives ruined a day.I’m really glad my meme reached some of the people I hoped it would, especially those who said nothing when innocent women were murdered by people who shouldn’t have been in this country. Not one word was said then. Yet suddenly there’s a huge outpouring of outrage over the recent shootings in Minneapolis involving federal immigration agents.
So before you act like you have some moral high ground, maybe get off that blow-up pedestal and think about how that looks. To many of us, that selective outrage is hypocrisy.
ECO said I should identify each person in the photo; but who here wants to hear the gory details of their final moments? Do you think any of them were deliberately blocking traffic, blasting music, dancing in their car seats, spitting at ICE agents, kicking out headlights, or otherwise interfering with enforcement? These women had no choices left to make and no control over what would happen to them.
By contrast, the shootings in Minnesota, including the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, happened during massive clashes between federal agents and protesters amid a highly controversial immigration enforcement surge that has drawn widespread criticism and investigations.
So yes — I see real hypocrisy right here on HubPages. And I knew my meme would draw those reactions. Bingo — and it did.I asked ChatGPT to find me a few examples of DHS breaking the law "just doing their job".
1) Defying federal court release/transfer orders in Minnesota (Operation Metro Surge)
Federal judges in Minnesota have sharply criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for repeatedly not complying with court orders—including orders to release individuals or keep them in-state—during “Operation Metro Surge.” Reports describe judges warning about contempt and alleging dozens of violations.
2) Warrantless home entry found to violate the Fourth Amendment
A report describes a federal judge in Minnesota ruling that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering a home without a judicial warrant, in a fact pattern tied to an internal policy debate about using administrative warrants for entry.
3) Court order to stop “unlawful arrest and detention” of refugees (Minnesota)
The International Refugee Assistance Project reports a federal court order directing ICE to stop unlawful arrest/detention practices involving refugees and to release/return impacted individuals (as described in their update).
(This is from an advocacy group summary of the court action; the key point is that a court issued the order.)
Longer-running examples with formal court rulings / settlements
4) Unlawful ICE detainers (Fourth Amendment) — Gonzalez litigation/settlement
There’s a major line of cases finding problems with ICE “detainers” (requests that local jails hold people). A federal appeals decision and later nationwide settlement work describe detainer practices as violating the Fourth Amendment when based on unreliable databases / lacking proper probable-cause processes.
5) Warrantless arrests & vehicle stops — Castañon Nava settlement (consent decree)
A federal court approved a settlement imposing rules on ICE because of allegations of unlawful warrantless arrests/vehicle stops, requiring policy changes and oversight.
6) Deceptive “ruses” to get people to open doors / exit homes (settlement)
A settlement (reported by ACLU of Southern California) prohibits ICE officers from using certain deceptive tactics (e.g., impersonating local law enforcement) to gain access to a home or get someone to come out.
7) Policy of re-arresting/re-detaining people without legal justification blocked
A federal district court in California blocked a policy described as unlawfully re-arresting and re-detaining immigrants the government had previously released after determining they weren’t dangerous/flight risks.I made the terrible mistake of replying to the post which contains the faces of murder victims so callously presented to score political points - I won't do that again.
But I still must respond to a post that shamelessly did.
We have laws in this country. American criminals are brought to justice under the laws that govern us. - TRUE
Migrants in our nation are also subject to those laws. - TRUE
There are statutes that ensure migrants are given due process regarding their status while in the U.S. - TRUE AGAIN, there are statutes. What is not said is that DHS FREQUENTLY breaks the law by not following them.
Many different legal statuses exist, but when a person has exhausted all legal avenues and is ordered to leave, failing to depart is breaking the law. - TRUE
But the rest, in technical terms, is called a counterfactual “law enforcement would have prevented it” argument—an appeal to consequences that oversimplifies causation.
If individuals who are in the country illegally then go on to commit crimes such as murder, common sense tells us that the victims would likely still be alive if the illegal migrants had been removed as required by law. This is not a comparison of American versus migrant crime, but a matter of law enforcement. The problem is that our immigration laws are not being consistently enforced.
The women referenced in the meme would be alive if these laws had been followed. All of them were killed by illegal migrants who should not have been in the country. Regardless of what some mush-brain liberals may think, we have laws, and we expect them to be upheld.
What the above does is It takes a terrible event we already know happened and rewrites history as if there’s only one lever that mattered: “remove this one person and the outcome disappears.”
But that isn’t analysis; it’s hindsight storytelling. It also ignores other plausible causes—missed warning signs, failures of local policing or supervision, domestic violence dynamics, weapons access, mental health crises, or plain bad luck—and it pretends we can know with certainty what would have happened in a parallel universe where enforcement was “perfect.” You can argue for stricter enforcement as a policy preference, but you can’t honestly claim these specific victims would be alive without proving the whole causal chain, case by case, rather than assuming it.LOL --- I think anyone who has bothered to read your views on the Meme can make their own conclusionson you attitude, and mindset. I was not making politcal point, I was making a true comparison of left/right hypocrisy-- and my meme worked so well to help me draw it out. Yeah, it certainly quickly had a few steps into the spotlight.
Federal judge rejects Minnesota request to block ICE-led Operation Metro Surge
Federal judge says state and two cities didn't meet high legal bar required to halt federal law enforcement operation
A federal judge has denied Minnesota’s request to immediately halt the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) –led Operation Metro Surge.
Saturday's ruling said the state and two cities failed to meet the high legal bar required to block a federal law enforcement operation at this stage of the case.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order and said the plaintiffs "have not met their burden" for the "extraordinary remedy" of a preliminary injunction.
The State of Minnesota, along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and federal immigration officials in an effort to block the ICE-led enforcement operation.
The plaintiffs asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the federal operation while the case proceeds.
But Menendez denied that request, ruling the plaintiffs failed to meet the high legal standard required for such extraordinary relief.
ONE WORD YAY!!! A step that shows our laws matter.Nobody doubted that outcome, even I would have ruled that way although it would have made me as mad and sick to my stomach as it did the judge.
You know what else Menendez said that you failed to include as context?
She wrote, among other things, "Plaintiffs built a strong factual record of harm—and the Court “must acknowledge” it.
She writes the operation has had “profound and even heartbreaking” consequences, cites evidence of “racial profiling” and “excessive use of force,” and then adds: “It would be difficult to overstate the effect this operation is having… and the Court must acknowledge that reality here.”
But, unlike Trump and DHS, she wants to follow the law.
O’Reilly: No more sanctuary states and cities, no more insurrection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kxPanJVL58
Some people get it, the word is spreading, Joe Rogan, Bill, others are using their platforms to educate America on what is going on, the silence when the Democrats are betraying America and Americans is over.
It will be highlighted, if not by the corrupt MSM that is nothing but lies and propaganda, then by citizen reporters and voices like Rogan and O'Rielly.Tim Walz accidently spills the beans... the goal of the Democrats is Civil War (timestamped):
https://youtu.be/YA807ptClaA?t=67
Related Discussions
- 96
ICE: Doing Their Job Amid Chaos and Criticism
by Sharlee 5 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...