Why Does ICE Continue to Arrest Persons Who Are Here Legally?

Lots of numbers, no actual backup.

Lots of it based on anonymous sources, and in any event the guy involved in the shooting had 10 years experience.

But just more narrative.
This is one of your standard dodges. Running away from facts without challenging or refuting them.

ICE goons get 47 days of “training”.
 
This is one of your standard dodges. Running away from facts without challenging or refuting them.

ICE goons get 47 days of “training”.

"facts"

So far nothing but anonymous sources, no hard information.
 
This guy was detained for a few hours before they had an “oopsie” moment and brought him back home.

View attachment 1208702

How is this happening?
Ive heard that the number of citizens detained is only around 150. Given that theyve arrested hundreds of thousands of illegals, they seem to have a REALLY good ratio.

What exactly are you looking for here? Do you want to stop enforcing immigration because some citizens were temporarily detained?
 
No. As long as they catch it and rectify the wrong.

What is too many is one single individual impeding law enforcement in any manner at all.

Agreed?
Wrong. The attention to detail, planning, intelligence in planning and conduct of daily operations is appalling. If you are going to go into someone's home, dragging them out, while you supposedly investigate after the fact of abusing his rights, as if you had the divine rights of kings, is not only morally corrupt, but totally against the guarrantees of the Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the United States and 250 years of the Rule of Law.

Your excuse is unacceptable, by US historical Standards.
 
Moving goal posts? You talk "due process", but then........ :auiqs.jpg:
Due process doesn't require seeing an administrative law judge.

No, immigration due process doesn't always require an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing; while many non-citizens have a right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) for removal proceedings, policies like expedited removal allow swift deportation without one, and some processes bypass the court system entirely, though due process generally ensures notice, opportunity to be heard, and an impartial decision-maker
 
You said Obama gave them due process. You were wrong.

No, immigration due process doesn't always require an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing; while many non-citizens have a right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) for removal proceedings, policies like expedited removal allow swift deportation without one, and some processes bypass the court system entirely, though due process generally ensures notice, opportunity to be heard, and an impartial decision-maker
 
Wrong. The attention to detail, planning, intelligence in planning and conduct of daily operations is appalling. If you are going to go into someone's home, dragging them out, while you supposedly investigate after the fact of abusing his rights, as if you had the divine rights of kings, is not only morally corrupt, but totally against the guarrantees of the Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the United States and 250 years of the Rule of Law.

Your excuse is unacceptable, by US historical Standards.
List the cases tossed because ICE violated someone's rights....
 
"facts"

So far nothing but anonymous sources, no hard information.
Reports from early 2026 show ICE cut training from around five months to an 8-week, 6-day-a-week schedule (48 days total) to get agents into the field faster.
 
List the cases tossed because ICE violated someone's rights....
No. Wrong is wrong, independent of cases brought to fruition.
 
Reports from early 2026 show ICE cut training from around five months to an 8-week, 6-day-a-week schedule (48 days total) to get agents into the field faster.
What was the day total on the 5 month training?

And note the 47 thing disappeared....

That you have to play day/month games show you are just reacting like a normal TDS idiot.
 
I see, ICE was looking for a sex offender, no wonder liberals are have a hissy fit. They love protecting sex offenders.
 
So again, scrap all law enforcement unless they achieve perfection?
No, but they can darn sure plan and investigate prior to going into a citizen's home and dragging him out in the street in shorts and house shoes. They could have done the same investigating beforehand, instead of after the unwarranted attack on his rights. If they had time afterward, they had time before going to that house, to have gotten it right.
 
15th post
No, but they can darn sure plan and investigate prior to going into a citizen's home and dragging him out in the street in shorts and house shoes. They could have done the same investigating beforehand, instead of after the unwarranted attack on his rights. If they had time afterward, they had time before going to that house, to have gotten it right.

Lots of made up details based on nothing but your imagination.

Also hard to do all those things when idiot lefty morons make your job as hard as ******* possible.

Finally that's on the paper pushers in the office.

Again, you are asking for perfection because you don't like what is happening politically.

How many incorrect arrests happen daily throughout the United States?

Oh wait, you didn't care until now when it was done by ICE.
 
Wrong. The attention to detail, planning, intelligence in planning and conduct of daily operations is appalling. If you are going to go into someone's home, dragging them out, while you supposedly investigate after the fact of abusing his rights, as if you had the divine rights of kings, is not only morally corrupt, but totally against the guarrantees of the Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the United States and 250 years of the Rule of Law.

Your excuse is unacceptable, by US historical Standards.
Your complaint is juvenile and without merit.
 
The wrong was already done.
American citizens are NOT to be harassed. They have 4th Amendment rights.
And once violated, you can't just perform lip service and say I'm sorry I violated your constitutional rights.
So, list the law that supports your claim. Do not say the Constitution. Now, provide proof that they didn't have a reasonable suspicion and/or a warrant.
 
Back
Top Bottom