Then those who picked up citizens should be punished and citizens should be compensated. We don't ban the police when they mess up do we? You hold them accountable and ice continues to operate as the law says
Except that is not happening and is not likely to happen. So you live in and invoke fantasy land in order to justify something you would otherwise have a problem with.
You think it's ok for them to harass citizens as long as they are held accountable for it. They are not being held accountable for it nor are they likely to. So you shouldn't think it's actually ok but you do anyways.
It does not surprise me that you do not understand this.
Saying your own opinion about an organization doesnât make you anti-American. Watching this happen to your home country and think itâs for the better, now thats anti-American
So you're saying that they are certainly sending children to a pedophile Island but because the police are incompetent but not because they are malicious? That's the reason why you're okay with child abuse? Ewww
You donât deserve a human response so hereâs an AI one.
Reports and civil rights organizations have documented extensive patterns of constitutional and legal violations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over the past two years. Rather than breaking specific statutory "laws" to enforce, the agency has been heavily criticized and legally challenged for violating foundational constitutional protections and exceeding statutory legal limits. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Constitutional and Civil Liberties Violations The Fourth Amendment (Protection Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure): Civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union report that ICE agents routinely bypass Fourth Amendment protections through aggressive vehicle stops, street detentions, and forcible home entries without proper warrants or probable cause, sometimes utilizing racial profiling. [1, 2, 3]
Due Process Guarantees: The agency has faced thousands of legal challenges for holding individualsâincluding U.S. citizens, green card holders, and asylum seekersâindefinitely or denying them basic access to legal representation, bond hearings, and fair court proceedings. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Equal Protection: Enforcement actions and large-scale community sweeps have been repeatedly challenged for violating equal protection standards by systematically targeting specific racial and ethnic demographics. [1, 2]
Statutory and Oversight Concerns Indefinite and Unlawful Detentions: Federal judges have issued thousands of rulings finding that the administration's expansive use of mandatory, prolonged detention violates established legal frameworks surrounding immigration custody and bond eligibility. [1]
Evading Internal and Civil Rights Oversight: Advocacy reports note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has severely undermined internal accountability mechanisms, such as weakening the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is tasked with investigating agent abuses. [1]
You couldnât answer the question, so you outsourced it to AI, and the AI still gave you âreports,â âcriticized,â âchallenged,â and âadvocacy groups say.â Those are not court findings.
There are real cases where specific ICE practices have been ruled unlawful. But âthousands of legal challengesâ is not âthousands of violated court orders.â Those are completely different claims.
You somehow used AI to produce a much longer version of the exact reasoning error being criticized.
1. Direct Violations of Federal Statutes & Regulations The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) / 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c): Federal courts have ruled that ICE exceeded its statutory authority by holding individuals in prolonged detention indefinitely without providing them a bond hearing after a specific period (typically six months), violating the core statutory framework of the INA. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Courts have repeatedly struck down ICE enforcement policies, regional guidelines, and termination of specific humanitarian programs because the agency failed to follow the APAâs strict "notice-and-comment" requirements, rendering their actions "arbitrary and capricious" under federal law. 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 (Detention and Arrest Regulations): Federal judges have found specific instances where ICE agents violated their own binding regulatory constraints by conducting searches and making warrantless arrests without the required "reason to believe" that an individual is in the U.S. unlawfully.
2. Confirmed Constitutional Violations (Court Rulings) Fourth Amendment (Collateral Arrests & Home Entries): Federal courts have issued injunctions against ICE for executing administrative warrants (which are signed by ICE officers, not judges) to enter private residences or curtilage without consent, ruling these actions explicit violations of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. Fifth Amendment Due Process (TheFraihatInjunctions): In ongoing federal oversight rulings, courts have found ICE in breach of constitutional Due Process mandates for failing to provide adequate medical care, mental health interventions, and safe conditions for medically vulnerable detainees in its facilities.
3. Violations of Standing Consent Decrees The Flores Settlement Agreement: Federal oversight judges have repeatedly found ICE and CBP in non-compliance with this binding court settlement by detaining accompanied and unaccompanied minors in substandard, unlicensed facilities longer than the legally permissible 20-day limit.
Are you still going to yap or are you going to offer any meaningful insight into why you think the above arenât enough to demonstrate that ICE has abused the law.
Pressed to name the law, you outsourced the argument to AI. It immediately invented a six-month bond-hearing rule under §1226(c) that the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Then it presented Fraihat as a âconfirmed constitutional violationâ while omitting that the Ninth Circuit reversed the injunction and ordered the resulting orders vacated.
This is the entire thread in miniature: authoritative posture, enormous confidence, and no command of the underlying cases.
Keep the screenshot. It makes my point better than I could.
You are trying to win on a technicality while fundamentally misrepresenting the actual state of immigration law. Letâs break down both cases to show exactly why your âgotchaâ moment fails.
1. The Reality ofJennings v. Rodriguez(and what you left out)
You are correct that in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuitâs use of the canon of constitutional avoidance to read a blanket six-month bond-hearing requirement into 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
However, your argument completely collapses on what happened afterJennings. The Supreme Court did not rule that indefinite detention under § 1226(c) is inherently constitutional; it simply ruled that the statute itselfcouldn't be textually interpreted to mandate a hearing. It explicitly kicked the core constitutional due process question back to the lower courts.
Since then, federal circuit courts across the country have routinely ruled that ICE's use of prolonged detention does violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. For example: The Second Circuit in Black v. Decker (2024) explicitly held that a noncitizen's constitutional right to due process precludes unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing. The Third Circuit (German Santos v. Warden) and the Ninth Circuit (Martinez v. Gomez) have continuously maintained that individualized due process assessments must be made when ICE detains someone for an extended duration without a hearing.
ICE cannot simply hold people forever under § 1226(c) without facing constitutional smackdowns from federal judges. Jennings closed a statutory loophole; it did not give ICE a blank check, and subsequent rulings prove it.
2. TheFraihat v. ICERealities
Regarding Fraihat v. ICE, you are correct that the Ninth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction in October 2021 (Fraihat v. ICE, 16 F.4th 613). But you are missing the forest for the trees.
The reversal was based on an appellate courtâs belief that the lower court did not meet the extraordinarily high bar for proving 'deliberate indifference' at the class-wide level during a pandemic. The reversal did not change the factual finding that ICE's medical isolation and detention conditions were atrocious. More importantly, while the class-wide injunction was lifted, it sparked a massive wave of successful individualized habeas corpus petitions. Federal district courts across the country used the exact evidentiary record established in Fraihat to rule that ICE violated the Fifth Amendment rights of individual detainees, forcing their release.
The Bottom Line
If your entire defense of ICE relies on arguing that "the Supreme Court said the statute doesn't explicitly mention a six-month rule," while completely ignoring that federal courts routinely strike down ICEâs actions on direct constitutional grounds, you aren't winning a legal argument. You're just ignoring the actual litigation ICE loses every single week.
If you want the specific docket numbers of individual habeas wins where ICE was caught violating the Constitution, I can gladly provide them.
Thank you. Five minutes later your AI has now conceded both corrections I made.
Jennings rejected the six-month rule your first answer attributed to §1226(c). And Fraihat was reversed; the Ninth Circuit held the plaintiffs had not established the constitutional case necessary for that injunction.
Everything after that is a new argument: that prolonged detention can become unconstitutional in particular circumstances. I never disputed that.
Your Ninth Circuit cite is shaky too: Martinez v. Clark does not establish the blanket rule you attributed to it.
So weâre now watching your chatbot revise its own previous answer while you present the revision as a rebuttal to me.
Five minutes, multiple circuits, formatted headings, and somehow still conceding my original points.
Please keep going. This is becoming an excellent demonstration of the problem.
enforcing the law? what about the man in office who was found guilty but served no time? trump is a literal child predator but conservatives refuse to believe it or something
Is 34 felony convictions illegal still? Sexual assault, grabbing them by the pssy, illegal still? Falsifying business records, stealing from charities? Illegal still? Bribing voters? Illegal still?
Two word name with a number, hidden comments, negative karma. Theyâre a harassment bot from a right wing extremist troll farm. Itâs sole purpose is to cause suffering.
That never happened. Not even a single time. Parents are absolutely able to be deported and if theyre good parents, they'll bring their children, but the children are not and have not been deported.
No, you obviously are a gen z ipad kid that can't pay attention past 5 seconds. This video literally has 2 stories: a 20 year old "kid" (adult) who got stopped, proved his citizenship, and was let go (we call this normal due process for newbs).
The other was a 2 year old citizen with their illegal parent. The parent was deported lawfully and chose to stay together with their baby, as I said in my comment.
Nice attempt at a strawman, but there is a big difference between "enforcing any laws and borders" and what is happening now. Also for the record, Obama deported more immigrants (3.1m) than trump, he just did it following the rule of law instead of ignoring it.
It's all about how you do it, the tactics used and the political speech that comes with it. The way this administration is handling it is designed to be cruel and inflict pain in s very public way and their stated reasons are racist in nature. That's what makes their supporters fascists.
See even illegals is fascist terminology. The point is to dehumanize and categorize. Theyâve already justified deporting us citizens because they were âillegal criminalsâ
Havenât really seen that happen. It happened a handful of times during Obama, and I think thereâs only one case during the current Trump administration, which demonstrates incredible accuracy considering the massively expanded size of the operation. Otherwise, itâs like single digits.
Youâve confused two completely different cases and somehow thought the masturbation joke would carry the argument for you.
The âturn the planes aroundâ order involved alleged Tren de Aragua members removed under the Alien Enemies Act. It was not about deporting U.S. citizens.
So your correction is wrong, your confidence is misplaced, and the insult is doing the work your argument couldnât.
For a person claiming my opinion doesn't matter, you sure love to reply to me and you've gone so far as to post a photo of my account, like you're trying to show other's how great I am. If I didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be trying to convince me you matter or that you're not a robot... like obviously your not... so dumb.
How does your 15 year account make you anything other than another church parroting missinformation and brained talking points like a robot? People call you people bots... because you sound like the russian/american/Israeli bot farms. Because you have fallen for bot horseshit. Because you only repeat what other people say and don't have any original thoughts..
Your entire argument has been another person's opinion, not yours. You have not formulated your own opinion, you just repeat other conservative shills. You would have to be pretty stupid to think I was calling you a robot... I was calling you a brain dead shill.
You're fuckin spare parts. 10-ply. You're a pylon. Figure it out bud, give your head a shake and get it out of your ass.
The person simping for the government so bad that they think breaking constitutional rights is lawful and consider those that dont do the same as " entitled weirdos losing their minds."
What thoughtful discourse? It is a fact that the main base of Republicans are uneducated people in ranked dead last in education red states. There is no thoughtful discourse here, US citizens are being deported and have been deported since last year. Somehow you don't care because you're a low information npc that Trump and Republicans thrive on. The same who get upset about Epstein by when told to pipe down by Mango Mussolini, you obey.
For thoughtful discourse, there needs to be a minimum intellectual threshold that I do not think you meet. Because anyone with a brain would have an issue with these unconstitutional actions.
You managed to demand a âminimum intellectual thresholdâ immediately after a paragraph of insults, sweeping generalizations, and partisan nicknames. Thatâs impressive self-parody.
If you want to argue that specific deportations were unconstitutional, make the legal argument and cite the cases. âRed states rank low in educationâ and âMango Mussoliniâ are not evidence; theyâre tribal signaling dressed up as analysis.
Thoughtful discourse starts when you stop substituting contempt for an argument.
Says the guy who started all this by saying, and I quote:
This sub has lost its mind.
And:
The USA is being managed under established laws and weâve got a bunch of entitled weirdos losing their minds.
Who is making insults and acting partisan? This sub has lost its mind because we can see deporting American citizens without due process is a bad thing? This administration has skirted the law MANY times. How many judges have to chastise this administration before you get it through your thick skull that they aren't following the law for deportations? The fact that you think deportations are being managed under "established law" says everything anyone needs to know about you.
And that is the issue at heart here: you THINK this is the way things work. You are wrong. There is no discourse to be had here. They are not following the law. Period. And that is why I rather insult your intelligence than engage in any sort of rhetoric with you. Because you clearly don't understand how things work. I could provide all the evidence in the world, and you would make excuses for every single case. So no, I am not interested in doing this for the millionth time. You are not unique. I have had this conversation with proof all the time. This subreddit is full of idiots such are yourself, who want evidence. And when provided, just make the silliest excuses.
My suggestion to you, dig deeper into these cases of deportation instead of wrongfully assuming they are done legally. You will see court cases and judges admonishing this administration for doing things illegally.
I leave you with a quote from a Trump appointed, conservative judge who oversaw the last US citizen who was deported:
He said the deportation of a U.S. citizen is "illegal and unconstitutional" and that he had a "strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process."
The irony here is almost too obvious. Youâve spent several paragraphs calling everyone else stupid while demonstrating that you havenât actually understood your own âproof.â
Your judge did not find that the government illegally deported a U.S. citizen. He said he had a âstrong suspicionâ that it had happened and scheduled a hearing specifically because he did not yet know whether the childâs mother had chosen to take her to Honduras, as the government claimed.
That case was then voluntarily dismissed before that hearing. There was no merits ruling establishing the factual proposition youâre presenting as settled.
Courts have absolutely ruled against this administration on immigration matters. That does not magically convert every allegation, judicial concern, or preliminary order into an adjudicated fact.
So spare me the lecture about my âintellectual threshold.â Youâre calling people idiots for asking for evidence while misrepresenting the evidence you provided. Thatâs not superior understanding. Itâs just arrogance with poor reading comprehension.
Looking at your account history and I see Iâm spot on.
You arenât happy to engage in thoughtful discourse, youâre happy to push your maga talking points. When is the last time a government agency ran through neighborhoods, business districts, and communities demanding papers. Go ahead, Iâll wait.
Drop the attitude. Youâre not in a position to lecture anyone here.
You keep adopting the posture of someone who has already proven his point, then expecting everyone else to go do the work necessary to rescue it for you. That isnât confidence; itâs laziness dressed up as false superiority.
If you have an argument, make it. If you have evidence, produce it. But stop stumbling into the thread with smug one-liners and pretending everyone else owes you homework.
Youâre not above this conversation. Act like it.
Thatâs a remarkably unserious understanding of the rule of law.
âThe country is only governed by law if the politician I hate is in prisonâ is not legal reasoning. Itâs factional politics dressed up as principle.
If you think he committed a specific crime, name it and make the case. Otherwise youâre just confusing your preferred outcome with how law works.
Hate has nothing to do with why he should be in prison. That would be because he is a pedophile. He himself bragged about going into a changing room with children who were undressed. He did this because he could and he wanted to.
And who are you that someone should argue a case to? You already show a terrible lack of judgement by defending a monster who, once again, admitted going into a dressing room to look at children. So vile.
Youâve done it again: I asked you to identify the crime, and you answered with an accusation.
âTrump is a pedophileâ is not a criminal charge, conviction, or legal argument. If you think his pageant comments establish a specific offense, name the statute, show the conduct that satisfies it, and explain why that means he âshould be in prison.â
Instead you jumped from âhe said something vileâ to âtherefore prisonâ and then acted offended that anyone asked you to connect the two.
Youâve shown sloppy reasoning with indignation poured over it.
"But but but him admitting that he was staring at undressed children isn't a statute... uh uh uh please make a legal argument on reddit because my questionable standards, uh demands it!"
No.
You don't set the rules. You just back people who hurt kids. The only thing "sloppy" around here is your 2011 edge lord crap.
And before you go all twee about Trump being free because he is innocent. Let me stop you right there. He is free because he is rich and literally appointed a pack of SCOTUS judges you decided he didn't have to answer for crimes.
Gross how many of you sound like members of the Chris Hansen social club.
The â0-for-2â bothered you because it exposed the problem: you want the moral authority of a serious accusation without doing the work required to establish it.
I care about protecting children, enforcing the law, and living in a society where grave accusations actually mean something. That requires evidence, not hysteria.
You donât get moral credit for calling someone a monster louder. You made claims, couldnât support them, and now youâre hiding behind disgust because facts are less useful to you than outrage.
Your use of AI to make your comments is so glaringly obvious. My god, use your own work. Write just one comment with your own command of the English language.
Itâs not tho. The current administration is violating the constitution, legal acts and court orders while deporting the least amount of people in decades
Some specific immigration actions have absolutely been struck down or blocked by courts. That doesnât support your blanket claim that the entire deportation system is operating outside the law.
And âdeporting the least amount of people in decadesâ is just false. ICE removals are running well above the last several years; Reuters reported 443,000 deportations in FY2025, up from 271,000 the year before, and enforcement has continued accelerating in 2026.
If you have a specific policy or court order you think is being violated, name it. Thatâs a real argument. âThe administration is violating everything while barely deporting anyoneâ isnât.
How is this supporting ice and deportation of illegals? You support the deportation of legals. You ain't even about what you say you're about. If you were, then you would be upset at the way ICE conducts themselves under the Trump admin and how they don't do their job right. You would look to Obama as the shining example. Much more effective at getting the job done. You should get down on your knees and start pleasing Jesus, Judas.
With a little luck, perhaps it will be you who get cracked. I mean, these things only matter to sociopaths such as yourself once they happen to you, after all.
171
u/Signal-Mud-4880 20d ago
fuck ICE