deportation: this issue is flying under the radar screen

[Marener]

Wade's path to deportation began on Sept. 13, 2025, when he was pulled over for failing to use a turn signal in Conyers. He was arrested for driving without a license. Soon after, ICE detained him due to a 2014 removal order stemming from a 2007 bounced check and a 2006 simple assault charge.

Any sane person would say that these charges from decades ago shouldn’t result in deportation of a person who meaningfully contributed to our society.

 

[Mac-7]

Any sane person would say that these charges from decades ago shouldn’t result in deportation of a person who meaningfully contributed to our society.

Did he meaningfully contribute?

I suspect he did not have an honorable discharge

So that “contribution” has yet to be documented

We dont deport citizens for writing bad checks or domestic violence but it is grounds for removal of non citizens

And he has removal orders from before trump became president

 

[Rogue AI]

There was a removal order from 2014. Due process granted. No reason for this person not to deported.

 

[Dragonlady]

The issue is real simple: Trump's AI sucks.

Reality?

1. The only way the Prez is getting lists of hundreds of thousands of people to deport, is with AI.
2. AI makes ==> lots of mistakes. Way more than a jury of 12 peers. Way, way more. Ten times more. At least.
3. The AI that's being used, wasn't trained on the edge cases. Which are numerous, several dozen occur every week. Like this one:

Georgia army veteran faces deportation after 50 years in U.S.: "Thank you for your service...should mean something"

A Covington Army veteran facing deportation after more than 50 years in the U.S. could be removed this week.

www.cbsnews.com

I'm afraid, from my detached libertarian perspective, that ICE is after the numbers and doesn't pay much attention to the exonerating evidence.

This is bad optics, and Trump needs to fix this. Even if he has to bring Elon back (if Elon will even come). Otherwise this is going to fester and the Dems will use it against him, effectively. And against all the midterm candidates in his camp, which includes some significant seats this time around.

Everything about the Trump administration sucks. They are the most incompetent administration in US history. Trump couldn't be doing a better job of destroying the USA and your standing in the world, if that was his primary goal, which I strongly suspect is the case.

Only an idiot would support such chaos and dysfunction.

 

[Dragonlady]

Did he meaningfully contribute?

I suspect he did not have an honorable discharge

So that “contribution” has yet to be documented

We dont deport citizens for writing bad checks or domestic violence but it is grounds for removal of non citizens

And he has removal orders from before trump became president

You suspect. What a moronic response. How be we go on actual EVIDENCE, instead of whatever you pull out of your ass???

 

[Lesh]

In so many words you did

Its governments job to keep illegal aliens out of the country and the job market

Not employers

Horse shit

If employers couldn’t hire them… they wouldn’t be here

 

[Mac-7]

Horse shit

If employers couldn’t hire them… they wouldn’t be here

That was true 100 years ago before the bleeding heart lib wipe-every-nose modern society

Now many migrants go directly onto welfare which takes away benefits away from American citizens

 

[Dragonlady]

In so many words you did

Its governments job to keep illegal aliens out of the country and the job market

Not employers

Then why is it that illegal immigration goes down when employers are being charged, and up when they're not.

Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama had extraordinary success in prosecuting employers. Not only does it cut illegal immigration, but the fines levied reduce the costs of prosecution. Simply deporting illegals is expensive, and there is no recovery on the funds expended. Prosecuting employers reduces total costs, and reduces illegal immigration.

The moment a Republican is in office, and the employers put out the "Now hiring illegals" word, and the border crossings spike.

 

[Dragonlady]

That was true 100 years ago before the bleeding heart lib wipe-every-nose modern society

Now many migrants go directly onto welfare which takes away benefits away from American citizens

None, moron. Stop believing Trump's lies.

 

[Godboy]

....we won't have a Nation anymore blah blah blah???

We don't have a Nation now, with the stark division among citizens....imo.

We are still the United States, but we wont be if democrats keep shoveling in illegals for their own political power. Conservative states WILL secede, then you ******* idiots will be stuck with millions of illegals that no longer give you power over conservative states. Your illegals will simply become economic boat anchors at that point.

Good luck with your massive welfare government. Conservatives will boot every illegal in their states and concentrate solely on applying good economic policies, while your economies will collapse under the crushing weight of your progressive idiocy.

 

[PeterPilot]

scruffy

Great post! IMO the government, pretty much any government, is not capable of efficient operations as you describe. It is impossible.

 

[theHawk]

The issue is real simple: Trump's AI sucks.

Reality?

1. The only way the Prez is getting lists of hundreds of thousands of people to deport, is with AI.
2. AI makes ==> lots of mistakes. Way more than a jury of 12 peers. Way, way more. Ten times more. At least.
3. The AI that's being used, wasn't trained on the edge cases. Which are numerous, several dozen occur every week. Like this one:

Georgia army veteran faces deportation after 50 years in U.S.: "Thank you for your service...should mean something"

A Covington Army veteran facing deportation after more than 50 years in the U.S. could be removed this week.

www.cbsnews.com

I'm afraid, from my detached libertarian perspective, that ICE is after the numbers and doesn't pay much attention to the exonerating evidence.

This is bad optics, and Trump needs to fix this. Even if he has to bring Elon back (if Elon will even come). Otherwise this is going to fester and the Dems will use it against him, effectively. And against all the midterm candidates in his camp, which includes some significant seats this time around.

^^ More fake news, using manipulation to make people think President Trump is deporting citizens.

The man featured in this article is Jamaican, not American. He had a standing deportation order from 2014 (Obama). He had a minor criminal record. He missed his court date.

But of course he isn’t responsible for his own actions, Dem shills have excuse after excuse for him.

Don’t care if he was in the army a short time. Why is the Army allowing foreign nationals to enlist? This should be stopped.

 

[theHawk]

no one's going to complain about heavy handed tactics if the perps are provably rapists and murderers

Wrong. Democrats will complain.

ICE is apprehending such individuals now, and the left always protests against them.

 

[Lesh]

That was true 100 years ago before the bleeding heart lib wipe-every-nose modern society

Now many migrants go directly onto welfare which takes away benefits away from American citizens

You realize there’s a difference between migrants and illegals

Right stupid?

 

[Care4all]

Oh, good, we have some common ground here!

So you both strongly oppose sanctuary city policies in which local officials refuse to cooperate with ICE when ICE has a detainer for a person in their jail?

This is what sanctuary cities do different than a place without sanctuary...

Gemini A/I

An ICE detainer is a voluntary request from the federal government asking local jails to hold an individual for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release date so federal agents can take them into custody.
In "sanctuary cities," local officials generally do not "let them go early"; rather, they release the person the moment their legal local detention ends (such as after posting bail or completing a sentence) and refuse the federal request to hold them for that extra 48 hours. These cities argue that holding someone without a judicial warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a local one.

What happens in "Sanctuary" jurisdictions?​

In a sanctuary city, when a person’s "local time" is up (e.g., they paid bail or their sentence ended), the jail must release them.

1. The ICE Detainer: ICE sends a request saying, "Please hold this person for 48 more hours so we can pick them up."
2. The Sanctuary Response: The city views this as a "voluntary request" rather than a legal warrant signed by a judge. Since the person has no more local charges, the city releases them immediately.
3. The Result: From ICE's perspective, the city "let them go." From the city's perspective, they simply followed the law by not holding someone without a legal warrant

Would you like me to find a list of states that currently have laws requiring local jails to cooperate with these detainers?

As of 2026, the landscape of immigration enforcement is deeply divided. Several states have passed "anti-sanctuary" laws that legally require local jails to honor federal detainers, while others have passed "sanctuary" laws that strictly prohibit doing so.


Below is a breakdown of the states that have mandated cooperation and those that have taken the opposite stance.

States Requiring Cooperation with ICE​

In these states, local law enforcement is generally required by state law to honor ICE detainers and, in many cases, to enter into formal "287(g)" agreements (which allow local officers to act as federal immigration agents within the jail).

State	Status of Cooperation
Florida	Requires local law enforcement to assist ICE and honors all detainers.
Texas	SB4 (2017) mandates cooperation; newer laws also allow state-level arrests.
Georgia	Requires local jails to check immigration status and cooperate with ICE.
Tennessee	Enacted laws barring sanctuary policies and requiring detainer compliance.
Iowa	Mandates that local law enforcement comply with federal immigration requests.
Louisiana	Generally requires local cooperation and honors ICE holds.
Alabama	Has longstanding laws requiring status checks and detainer cooperation.
North Carolina	Recent

Note on Texas: Texas has been at the forefront of this, even passing laws (like the newer SB4) that attempt to allow state police to arrest and deport individuals directly, though these have faced significant legal challenges in federal court.

States Limiting Cooperation (Sanctuary States)​

These states have "sanctuary" policies that restrict or ban local jails from holding people for ICE without a judicial warrant. They argue that using local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement is unconstitutional.

• Illinois: Has some of the strictest laws in the country prohibiting the transfer of individuals to ICE custody.
• Oregon: Longstanding sanctuary status that blocks the use of local resources for immigration enforcement.
• California: Limits cooperation and prohibits local jails from contracting with the federal government to house immigration detainees.
• New York: Currently considering the "New York for All Act" (2026) to further restrict local officials from working with ICE.
• Washington: Limits the sharing of information and prohibits local jails from honoring detainers.

​

 

[Lesh]

This is what sanctuary cities do different than a place without sanctuary...

Gemini A/I

An ICE detainer is a voluntary request from the federal government asking local jails to hold an individual for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release date so federal agents can take them into custody.
In "sanctuary cities," local officials generally do not "let them go early"; rather, they release the person the moment their legal local detention ends (such as after posting bail or completing a sentence) and refuse the federal request to hold them for that extra 48 hours. These cities argue that holding someone without a judicial warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a local one.

State	Status of Cooperation
Florida	Requires local law enforcement to assist ICE and honors all detainers.
Texas	SB4 (2017) mandates cooperation; newer laws also allow state-level arrests.
Georgia	Requires local jails to check immigration status and cooperate with ICE.
Tennessee	Enacted laws barring sanctuary policies and requiring detainer compliance.
Iowa	Mandates that local law enforcement comply with federal immigration requests.
Louisiana	Generally requires local cooperation and honors ICE holds.
Alabama	Has longstanding laws requiring status checks and detainer cooperation.
North Carolina	Recent

States Limiting Cooperation (Sanctuary States)​

These states have "sanctuary" policies that restrict or ban local jails from holding people for ICE without a judicial warrant. They argue that using local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement is unconstitutional.

• Illinois: Has some of the strictest laws in the country prohibiting the transfer of individuals to ICE custody.
• Oregon: Longstanding sanctuary status that blocks the use of local resources for immigration enforcement.
• California: Limits cooperation and prohibits local jails from contracting with the federal government to house immigration detainees.
• New York: Currently considering the "New York for All Act" (2026) to further restrict local officials from working with ICE.
• Washington: Limits the sharing of information and prohibits local jails from honoring detainers.

What happens in "Sanctuary" jurisdictions?​

In a sanctuary city, when a person’s "local time" is up (e.g., they paid bail or their sentence ended), the jail must release them.

1. The ICE Detainer: ICE sends a request saying, "Please hold this person for 48 more hours so we can pick them up."
2. The Sanctuary Response: The city views this as a "voluntary request" rather than a legal warrant signed by a judge. Since the person has no more local charges, the city releases them immediately.
3. The Result: From ICE's perspective, the city "let them go." From the city's perspective, they simply followed the law by not holding someone without a legal warrant

Would you like me to find a list of states that currently have laws requiring local jails to cooperate with these detainers?

As of 2026, the landscape of immigration enforcement is deeply divided. Several states have passed "anti-sanctuary" laws that legally require local jails to honor federal detainers, while others have passed "sanctuary" laws that strictly prohibit doing so.


Below is a breakdown of the states that have mandated cooperation and those that have taken the opposite stance.

States Requiring Cooperation with ICE​

In these states, local law enforcement is generally required by state law to honor ICE detainers and, in many cases, to enter into formal "287(g)" agreements (which allow local officers to act as federal immigration agents within the jail).

State	Status of Cooperation
Florida	Requires local law enforcement to assist ICE and honors all detainers.
Texas	SB4 (2017) mandates cooperation; newer laws also allow state-level arrests.
Georgia	Requires local jails to check immigration status and cooperate with ICE.
Tennessee	Enacted laws barring sanctuary policies and requiring detainer compliance.
Iowa	Mandates that local law enforcement comply with federal immigration requests.
Louisiana	Generally requires local cooperation and honors ICE holds.
Alabama	Has longstanding laws requiring status checks and detainer cooperation.
North Carolina	Recent

States Limiting Cooperation (Sanctuary States)​

These states have "sanctuary" policies that restrict or ban local jails from holding people for ICE without a judicial warrant. They argue that using local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement is unconstitutional.

• Illinois: Has some of the strictest laws in the country prohibiting the transfer of individuals to ICE custody.
• Oregon: Longstanding sanctuary status that blocks the use of local resources for immigration enforcement.
• California: Limits cooperation and prohibits local jails from contracting with the federal government to house immigration detainees.
• New York: Currently considering the "New York for All Act" (2026) to further restrict local officials from working with ICE.
• Washington: Limits the sharing of information and prohibits local jails from honoring detainers.

What happens in "Sanctuary" jurisdictions?​

In a sanctuary city, when a person’s "local time" is up (e.g., they paid bail or their sentence ended), the jail must release them.

1. The ICE Detainer: ICE sends a request saying, "Please hold this person for 48 more hours so we can pick them up."
2. The Sanctuary Response: The city views this as a "voluntary request" rather than a legal warrant signed by a judge. Since the person has no more local charges, the city releases them immediately.
3. The Result: From ICE's perspective, the city "let them go." From the city's perspective, they simply followed the law by not holding someone without a legal warrant

What kind of crimes are detainers used for?

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is what sanctuary cities do different than a place without sanctuary...

Gemini A/I

An ICE detainer is a voluntary request from the federal government asking local jails to hold an individual for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release date so federal agents can take them into custody.
In "sanctuary cities," local officials generally do not "let them go early"; rather, they release the person the moment their legal local detention ends (such as after posting bail or completing a sentence) and refuse the federal request to hold them for that extra 48 hours. These cities argue that holding someone without a judicial warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a local one.

What happens in "Sanctuary" jurisdictions?​

In a sanctuary city, when a person’s "local time" is up (e.g., they paid bail or their sentence ended), the jail must release them.

1. The ICE Detainer: ICE sends a request saying, "Please hold this person for 48 more hours so we can pick them up."
2. The Sanctuary Response: The city views this as a "voluntary request" rather than a legal warrant signed by a judge. Since the person has no more local charges, the city releases them immediately.
3. The Result: From ICE's perspective, the city "let them go." From the city's perspective, they simply followed the law by not holding someone without a legal warrant

Would you like me to find a list of states that currently have laws requiring local jails to cooperate with these detainers?

As of 2026, the landscape of immigration enforcement is deeply divided. Several states have passed "anti-sanctuary" laws that legally require local jails to honor federal detainers, while others have passed "sanctuary" laws that strictly prohibit doing so.


Below is a breakdown of the states that have mandated cooperation and those that have taken the opposite stance.

States Requiring Cooperation with ICE​

In these states, local law enforcement is generally required by state law to honor ICE detainers and, in many cases, to enter into formal "287(g)" agreements (which allow local officers to act as federal immigration agents within the jail).

State	Status of Cooperation
Florida	Requires local law enforcement to assist ICE and honors all detainers.
Texas	SB4 (2017) mandates cooperation; newer laws also allow state-level arrests.
Georgia	Requires local jails to check immigration status and cooperate with ICE.
Tennessee	Enacted laws barring sanctuary policies and requiring detainer compliance.
Iowa	Mandates that local law enforcement comply with federal immigration requests.
Louisiana	Generally requires local cooperation and honors ICE holds.
Alabama	Has longstanding laws requiring status checks and detainer cooperation.
North Carolina	Recent

States Limiting Cooperation (Sanctuary States)​

These states have "sanctuary" policies that restrict or ban local jails from holding people for ICE without a judicial warrant. They argue that using local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement is unconstitutional.

• Illinois: Has some of the strictest laws in the country prohibiting the transfer of individuals to ICE custody.
• Oregon: Longstanding sanctuary status that blocks the use of local resources for immigration enforcement.
• California: Limits cooperation and prohibits local jails from contracting with the federal government to house immigration detainees.
• New York: Currently considering the "New York for All Act" (2026) to further restrict local officials from working with ICE.
• Washington: Limits the sharing of information and prohibits local jails from honoring detainers.

​

Informative post.

So it is pretty silly, given that blue cities and blue politicians refuse to cooperate with ICE in deporting people who commit further crimes ( after the crime of being in the country illegally), for blue posters to complain about ICE not deporting enough people who commit further crimes.

 

[Care4all]

We are still the United States, but we wont be if democrats keep shoveling in illegals for their own political power. Conservative states WILL secede, then you ******* idiots will be stuck with millions of illegals that no longer give you power over conservative states. Your illegals will simply become economic boat anchors at that point.

Good luck with your massive welfare government. Conservatives will boot every illegal in their states and concentrate solely on applying good economic policies, while your economies will collapse under the crushing weight of your progressive idiocy.

You are being SOLD A LIE. The whole Trumper acolytes have been sold the lie that Democrats want illegal entry immigrants to illegally vote for them.

There are not swarms or even what would called a few illegals voting.

Just think for a minute, please.

The trump admin, rounding up these illegal entry immigrants and immigrant violent criminals and deporting them, don't bother to see if these illegals are illegally registered to vote? WHY NOT godboy?

It's the perfect chance to prove to all of America that YOU were RIGHT and thousands of illegals are voting.....


BUT NOOOOOOO!
You don't do that....one little check to see if they are registered to vote and or voted....you all just can't do that.... because you or your masters spreading the never ending lie will be PROVEN to be LIARS.

There are 76000 illegal's being held in detention, why not check them and see how many are registered to vote, eh?

 

[Care4all]

What kind of crimes are detainers used for?

Nothing type crimes that qualifies all persons arrested for them to be released on bail or released on their own recognizance, or they have served their State Sentence for their crime....etc.

If someone violently raped or murdered someone, they likely do not get released on bail, is my thoughts....

 

[22lcidw]

Came here legally. Served on the Army. Been here 50 years. Raised a family. No felony record.

Yeah

They’re deporting the “worst of the worst”

Sure

If those things happen, they could be dealt with. We are dealing with a large number of people.