36
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
36 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25238 readers
609 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not saying any of your points aren't salient but I saw this story and thought nothing of it, at first. Take it for what it is, the details aren't entirely clear to me, yet. I'm not going to be like the GOP and follow marching orders just because I read a comment online.
Edit:
I expected the down votes and it's really sad you won't even hear me out.
Edit2:
How's does it feel to be a victim of media narrative? Just letting them jerk your chain because you have no chill?
People are likely willing to hear you out, but you haven't exactly made a point to hear out.
What details do you find unclear? From what I've read, the judge notified ICE that they didn't have a valid judicial warrant to arrest their target. After that, the judge allowed ICE's target to leave the courthouse, presumably because the immigrant was not required to comply.
There's a growing pattern of ICE attempting to take advantage of people's lack of ability to identify a judicial warrant to pressure them into compliance and/or arrest. I think it's reasonable to caution anyone that has to interact with any agency that's known to be shady.
If that were the entire story, maybe I agree, but it doesn't sound like that's the entire story.
I'm going to warn you: There's a lot that ICE and the administration have gotten away with because of people claiming "No way. Their actions would be too ridiculous if that's what it was. There must be more to it."
What we knew already even before scarce details emerged:
So no, I don't think ICE can be given benefit of doubt in this case. Every officer involved with this one can be arrested - and they can provide their argument when they go on trial.
Maybe you should read the entire story, it’s not that long.
When Republicans push media narratives like this it always seems some details are being left out.
"It seems like something is being left out"
"I don't know the whole story, I won't read it for myself, and I won't listen to other people about what it is."
"Why am I being downvoted?"
Clownmakeup.jpg
“I’m not going to blindly believe one headline, but I’m also not going to do any research whatsoever. Bring on the downvotes”
You’re wasting everyone’s time.
I did research. No, I'm not trusting anons on the internet. Grow up or wake up.
Unless I know your affiliation, you are just repeating common, unflappalbe facts, or using some sound logic that you would allow to be challenged.. no.
You voluntarily came onto the thread and stated loudly and clearly that you didn’t understand the story and thought little of it.
I’ve read all your other comments. You have not only contributed ZERO to the conversation, you have gone out of your way to make it partisan.
Just take a breath and use your brain, such as it is.
Okay, I'll hear you out. What details do you need clarified to be concerned that ICE is interrupting court to arrest people?
I need to know if they have broke any laws by doing so. I don't care if it's a judge. I can't be advocating for the trump administration follow rule of law and at the same time advocating anyone democrat leaning bending the rules to their liking. At no point has any one I consider a legal authority laid out the federal governemnts case and the judges case.
I may very well be on OPs side but what I see is a lot of dust getting kicked up and that usually means the trump propaganda machine is ramping up. It's looks like bait to me and it's probably a case the federal government will easily win in the court of public opinion so I'm not going to stick my neck out when it means my credibility is on the line when discussing other, more pressing, matters like Abrego Garcia.
Yes? The whole point is that they had the wrong paperwork and were not legally allowed to arrest the guy whose case the judge was presiding over.
It's not my particular place to lay out the details in this case. I suspect there are other people who are much better suited but my interpretation is they had paperwork to arrest in a public venue. The court was not said venue. The Judge then purposefully directed him to leave using an alternative exit to prevent his arrest. The legality of that action is what's in question.
Incorrect. An administrative warrant gives no grounds for an arrest, it authorizes fact-finding only.
What law do you think allows ICE to dictate what exits to use?
Good morning,
Sorry. I was driving all yesterday.
I hate quoting and clipping but since you were kind enough to take me seriously I'll do my best to address everything.
I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the left right now is how predictable we are. We do this because the GOP is emotionally manipulative. This is how they get away with being bad faith. They don't need to be good faith if they can demonstrate everyone is as emotionally driven as they are. Case and point, I woke up to the of r/conservative being this, this morning:
Could I have 100% told you this would be the case?
Yes, but not because I'm a genius. There are at least 3 different, reliables, sources I know that would have commented on this action and they didn't. Instead, reddit blew up. I cannot emphasis this enough, reddit is not reliable. I've been demonstrating it for almost a year now.
The rest of everything you said appears to be true. They are trying to make them afraid but I'm not sure the exact legal defense for this judge and I'll wait till I learn it.
The stance is correct. ICE as an agency is a threat to our democracy. Debating the nuance doesn't help with the point that ICE is able to internally determine who needs to go. With the state of the immigration system and threat to due process people should be standing up to what they believe is wrong. Personally, I think what the judge did was right when the man was there on a pretrial hearing for a seperate criminal matter.
As to the case, a previous 2011 directive for ICE to avoid arrests in or near courthouses was rolled back by Trump. That's the same one that included sensitive areas such as schools. So now, under executive direction, they can enter public spaces such as courthouses to effect arrests. This has the chilling effect of having persons accused of crimes in local communities avoid court dates and further erodes due process.
Alltogether, ICE wasn't wrong here procedurally and by the the letter of the law. However morally it's all sideways. We don't know if that man would have been transported to another state detention center, given access to a lawyer or even allowed to contact his family. Seeing how the admin has operated, he likely would never have gotten a court date to even review his immigration case.
If you interfere with ICE you can face criminal charges. That's what they're pinning on this judge.
So the system by design is f-d up. Notice how on a federal level no officials or anyone else has been arrested for violating due process rights of individuals in those high profile deportation cases? It's a crazy double standard and the administration will likely pump this case up to show that they have all the power--including (albeit here with a local judge) over the judiciary.
Again, ICE is wrong and what the government is doing to immigrants is wrong. It's a broad threat to our rights and they're just getting bolder by the day. Operating legally does not mean you are operating morally.
I like your messaging. I hope it becomes the dominant message.
No one's stopping you from talking, and votes don't matter. I think most people have the numbers turned off anyway.
Say what you're going to say.
EDIT: should have kept scrolling before commenting. I saw your other comment.
I said my peace.
The GOP want to provoke an emotion response with shit like this because they think it justifies their emotive support of trump and the people like him. We are all emotional beings, so when they provoke us, like they have when making attacks on the judiciary, they can point to us and say, "they're emotive too." It's manipulation and I don't believe much of this engagement is genuine.
The point is, it's more important, for people like Abrego Garcia, that we are not emotive right now and show a unified front of being principled. If a judge in New Mexico has to take an L then they have to take the L.
That judge has the choice to lay down her judgeship, plead her case in the court of public opinion and I would support her. If she's doesn't then she must obey the laws that bind us all. If she has done that then she has to go through courts.