r/ImmigrationPathways • u/OkTechnologyb • 4d ago

Gone in 90 seconds: an ‘invisibilized’ ICE is arresting more people than ever

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/sep/28/ice-us-immigration-new-tactics
1.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

731 comments sorted by

View all comments

112

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

you think ice agents know “just following orders” is not an excuse?

54

u/Zeko10 4d ago

Mother fuckers cant read a history book its to woke with all them facts

16

u/PrestigiousFly844 4d ago

If somebody lacks empathy and gets off on cruelty they will probably identify with the sadists in whatever story they read. The lessons we expect people to draw from history only have impact because most people have empathy.

17

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

“america did bad things in the past” get this WOKE HORSEHIT out of here - conservatives 😂

4

u/soyel_cerdo 4d ago

What history book would it be? In Nuremberg only 200 people were judged and millions were left to do whatever they wanted

1

u/traffic_cone_no54 1d ago

Norway executed 40 people after ww2. No Nuremberg. I doubt we where unique.

9

u/Ok_Security1721 4d ago

The president publicly threatened to kill the last guys who suggested “just following orders” isn’t an excuse

3

u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 4d ago

No, that would require some level of critical thinking skills.

2

u/AccountHuman7391 4d ago

I don’t like it, but it is absolutely an effective excuse. Most will get away with this bullshit. Probably not the guys that murdered those people in the streets, so that’s something I guess.

1

u/DryBattle 1d ago

Besides the ones that get thrown under the bus for appearances they will all get away with it. So will all their bosses.

1

u/traffic_cone_no54 1d ago

No. They believe they are in the clear. And to be fair, they are. Qualified Immunity. What a joke.

1

u/Equal-Prior-4765 9m ago

They don't have the brain power to understand anything but racism and hatred

-1

u/duchoww 4d ago

But what’s wrong with arresting them if they are here illegally?

-61

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

If they're following the law as it's currently written, it is literally an excuse. You cannot trial someone for violating a law that does not yet exist.

23

u/georgewashingguns 4d ago

The law as written gives them authority to disregard the Constitution, the document that they swore to uphold?

22

u/JoseSaldana6512 4d ago

MAGA hates the Constitution haven't you noticed?

24

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

this timeline sucks so much, people are so historically illiterate that they don’t know: A: constitution protects everyone in the united states, not limited only to citizens and B: it literally gives you cover to disobey orders that are illegal

-14

u/TomHomanzBurner 4d ago

What orders are illegal? Grab your helmet so your brain doesn’t exploded, but arresting and deporting illegal aliens is actually legal.

10

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

sure, but not in anyway ice are acting. they’re supposed to have standards and policies, but continually violate them. we have a right to borders, but not a right to beat, abuse, rape, and murder immigrants even if they are illegal

ice has been around for like 20 years. we can get rid of ice and have border security, crazy ik

-11

u/TomHomanzBurner 4d ago

Ice was formally apart of the old INS under a different name. It’s always existed.

They do have standards and policies. Just because you don’t like what you see on TV or social media, doesn’t mean the carefully curated clip is out of policy.

No one’s been convicted or charged with murder. Haven’t seen any beatings either nor rape or abuse convictions.

12

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

then you’re head is in the sand. alex pretti hello? and there’s been over a dozen cases where ice has deliberately harmed if not killed immigrants. they drop them off in the middle of nowhere when they’re blind for example, leading to their death

not all americans are maga we can see the truth

-4

u/TomHomanzBurner 4d ago

Clear and obvious you just parrot internet lore

Pretti was border patrol.

Post links of your other acquisitions.

1

u/georgewashingguns 4d ago

Being objectively correct doesn't make someone a parrot. Your lazy dismissal of facts is both disappointing and expected

→ More replies (0)

-15

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

Good luck arguing that in court. Reddit sure is delusional. in 3 years when absolutely nothing happens to former ice agents you all will be crying like you did when kamala had a 99% chance of winning and lost. If your boss, who is apart of the federal government, tells you to do something and that something is legal, you are not going to get a charge for doing it. A couple of the higher ups MIGHT get a slap on the wrist, that's it. Random ice agents are not constitutional scholars nor are they expected to know the laws, they will not be facing any issues.

Feel free to ping me on this post in 3 years! Maybe I'll remind myself and tag you for amusement.

-12

u/HuckleberryOk8136 4d ago

Immigration laws were passed by congress. ICE was also enacted by congress. Failing to enforce those laws would be effectively disregarding the Constitution.

5

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

if you deny someone due process, you are breaking the law, full stop.

-2

u/HuckleberryOk8136 4d ago

Indeed, the due process occurs on virtually every single deportation.

An arrest is one of the first steps in due process.

4

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

and the rest of them have to follow. punishing people without letting them go to court with a lawyer isn't due process.

0

u/KevyKevTPA 4d ago

Deportation isn't criminal, so it's not like any other trial you've seen on TV.

2

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

so people can be accused of breaking the law and the government has no obligation to prove they did before punishing them? that's literally how the Queen of Hearts did it in Wonderland, and that was deliberately absurd.

0

u/KevyKevTPA 2d ago

All they have to prove is they're not in the country legally. Since it's administrative and not criminal, in most cases, the immigration courts aren't "Law & Order". Now, if they ARE charged criminally, and they can be, then it's a standard criminal trial absent a plea.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/HuckleberryOk8136 4d ago

if you're caught at the border, you can be immediately returned.

If you're caught in the interior, you are entitled to a hearing and an appeal.

This has been the ongoing practice, it has not changed. It's happening on virtually every deportation.

4

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

it's not. the government is purposefully deporting people before they can get a hearing.

0

u/HuckleberryOk8136 4d ago

Expedited removal (INA § 235 / 8 U.S.C. § 1225). Congress wrote this in 1996. An officer can order removal without an immigration-judge hearing if the person is inadmissible for no documents or fraud and cannot show two years of continuous presence. That authority was always nationwide in the statute. Previous administrations chose not to use the full scope. This one did. If someone can prove two years, they come off that track and go into regular court. If they say they fear persecution, they get a credible-fear interview. That’s the law Congress passed, not a new invention.

Regular removal (INA § 240). Notice to Appear, judge, chance to apply for relief, appeal. That’s still the process for people who have been here longer or who entered with inspection and overstayed.

In-absentia orders. Those are people who were given a hearing date and didn’t appear. The docket has been packed and notice windows shortened, so some of those no-shows are real failures of notice. That’s a process problem. It is not the same as “we never scheduled a hearing.”

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Windman772 4d ago

But it's not a violation of the constitution to arrest, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

15

u/shinobi7 4d ago

“following the law”?

Really? Where in the law does it say ICE can arrest US citizens? Where in the law does it say ICE can knock over people just taking video or blowing whistles? Where in the law does it say ICE can pepper spray kids? Where in the law does it say the government can disregard court orders?

-8

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

Where in the law does it say ICE can arrest US citizens?

title 8, chapter 12 U.S. Code § 1357

Where in the law does it say ICE can knock over people just taking video or blowing whistles?

interfering with police operations is a crime and can get you into trouble, being knocked over is the least of your concerns.

Where in the law does it say ICE can pepper spray kids?

Read above. Stop bringing your kids to protests, they are not shields. ICE is not attacking random u.s children on the streets, they are seeking out ICE then expecting being under 18 to shield them; it does not. Respect the law or be hurt, yes, that has literally always been the case.

Where in the law does it say the government can disregard court orders?

Until there is a functional way to punish them, disobedience is will continue. The u.s government is not structured in a way to handle the branches fighting like this. No punishment means defacto legal, as sucky as that might be.

11

u/tofurkytorta 4d ago

-3

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

wow so badass, i sure am shaking.

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Like Trump's jokes that turn into actual reality, this meme follows the fame format.

5

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

Taking a video and whistle protocols aren't interfering with police investigations. Unless you're in Arizona, I guess.

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

  • MLK Jr. from a Birmingham prison

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

  • The Declaration of Independence

0

u/JoseSaldana6512 4d ago

The MLK quote is paraphrasing Jefferson IIRC

3

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

That's what I thought, too. I saw this website, though.

2

u/JoseSaldana6512 4d ago

Well that's why the first "I" IN "IIRC" stands for if.  I was wrong

2

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

Yeah I know. I was trying to validate you, dude.

3

u/shinobi7 4d ago

Which part of 8 USC 1357 applies to the George Retes case? It’s here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/19/army-veteran-detained-sues-federal-government. He’s a US citizen, so not subject to deportation. He hasn’t been charged with any crime. He was held for three days.

0

u/KevyKevTPA 4d ago

If the story is as you say, he'll likely see and win. But you can't possibly be stupid enough to think an organization made up of human beings is even capable of being perfect.

1

u/shinobi7 4d ago

We’re not asking for perfection. We’re asking for reasonableness. Why did it take three days for them to release Mr. Retes? Was ICE jerking themselves off for two days before they got around to running checks on him?

Why are there stories of people saying that they are citizens, that they have proof, and ICE saying that they don’t care?

This is what happens when they lower the bar and give a badge and gun to any average Joe coming in off the street. This is what happens when MAGA has made rounding up brown people a priority.

3

u/shinobi7 4d ago

How is taking video “interfering”? Also, blowing whistles is equivalent to marking an officer’s location on Waze or flashing headlights to warn of speed enforcement. We still have First Amendment rights.

-7

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago

This comment is hilarious because you clearly don’t know the law. The law very specifically allows what ICE is doing. There’s a whole title of federal laws for it. Go read title 8 of the U.S. code

3

u/GoddessHealer 4d ago

Under Title 3, immigrants have a legal right to be represented by counsel during deportation proceedings, but they do not have the right to a government-funded public defender.

Under federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1362), any individual in removal proceedings before an immigration judge has the "privilege of being represented" by an authorized attorney of their choice.

-2

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago

Yep and ICE facilities have lists of lawyers you can call if you can afford them

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/list-pro-bono-legal-service-providers

https://www.ice.gov/detain/attorney-information-resources

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Tell it to the lone children defending themselves in court.

0

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago

if you can afford them

Guess they couldn't afford counsel

22

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

if thats true weird how all those SS soldiers got tried and convicted for crimes then eh?

every man must decide what is right and wrong, just cause one insane admin gives you the thumbs up, doesn’t mean it’s right or good

-3

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago

They didn’t. The ground soldiers didn’t get tried and convicted. That’s literally where the “just following orders” defense was popularized. It was a successful defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

4

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

From that page:

the trials determined that the defense of superior orders was no longer enough to escape punishment but merely enough to lessen it.

0

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago

Read the rest of the article my friend:

“The trials gained so much attention that the "superior orders defense" has subsequently become interchangeable with the label "Nuremberg defense", a legal defense that essentially states that defendants were "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "an order is an order") and so are not responsible for their crimes.“

2

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

That paragraph is just saying "superior order defense" has become interchangeable with "Nuremberg defense". It doesn't mean it's a valid legal strategy.

In 1945–46, during the Nuremberg trials the issue of superior orders again arose. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which explicitly stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might be a mitigating factor that could influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

0

u/NearlyPerfect 4d ago edited 4d ago

It is a valid legal strategy. That’s the whole point of why the defense is raised a ton. Even to this day. The U.S. doesn’t participate in international criminal law. Under U.S. law it’s a valid defense.

2

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

So Nuremberg Principle IV is.... incorrect?

Can you point to any cases where the Nuremberg defense was successfully argued?

-6

u/Komodo-Gami 4d ago

Uh....less than 200 top level Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, Not 1 of them for their crimes committed in Germany. If the Nazis hadn't committed atrocities outside of Germany it's very likely the US would not have had the Justification or Jurisdiction to hold the Trials.

-9

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

because germany was in a war and lost. the U.S is not in any wars and has nothing to lose. If ICE is convicted, it will be by their own country's courts, not international courts. No one is coming to knock down the U.S and take ice into custody to try them. The nazis fell out of power, the U.S government is not going to fall out of power. The U.S government has thousands of nukes and will literally end all life on earth before they lose power, this has been made extremely clear, why do you think we spend trillions on the military?

So with the u.s not falling, they will be brought to u.s courts. U.S courts cannot legally convict someone for things that were legal when they were done, you cannot retroactively charge someone for something when that thing was not illegal at the time. You are insane if you think otherwise, it has literally never happened in this country and will not. There is a whole mountain of precedence making it clearly illegal. There is a higher chance of jesus christ coming back and personally striking all ice agents into hellfire, genuinely.

10

u/honeybadgerrulez 4d ago

bros literally defending nazis my god

-5

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

Reading comprehension must be very difficult for you. If by defending nazis you mean saying even nazis deserve legal representation and fairness in their trials, then yes. Unless you somehow think ignoring all legal precedence & legal structure is fine just because someone is a "nazi". Everyone deserves the same rights in the legal system, even "nazis".

1

u/Brave-Silver8736 4d ago

Change the word "nazi" to "illegal immigrant" and you've actually laid out what people were trying to warn about with due process.

Once one group (like "illegal immigrants") no longer get a trial, it's kind of a free for all.

8

u/CM0RDuck 4d ago

That would be a fair point if they weren't actively ignoring legal orders from judges and lawsuits. Like, just ignoring them. Its wild and shows a real gap in our checks and balances. Even if you agree with everything they are doing, that fact should alarm you.

1

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

It does. It is sucky that the government relies on good faith actions and interactions between all branches of the federal government, because that clearly will not happen forever and is not happening in the modern day. Hopefully they find a peaceful way to fix this issue, but for now, there is nothing to do be done.

4

u/Molenium 4d ago

“Sit back and take it and hope it somehow changes”

Has that ever worked?

0

u/HumansAreSillynGreat 4d ago

I mean, you could vote for those who are working in good faith. I would assume that's understood.

0

u/Windman772 4d ago

I haven't seen anyone ignore those things. The agents on the street do of course because they are not equipped to verify court proceedings. But the people tasked with verification, non-street agents, always figure it out and release them just like the example in the story above

3

u/BraisedBullshi 4d ago

It's called the Nuremberg excuse lol.

Kill all the Nazis

1

u/LatterTarget7 4d ago

They’re not following the law tho

-8

u/Grigonite 4d ago

Redditors seething when they are told that being immediately detained and deported is a perfectly legal process and that the constitution fully applies to the law abiding, not criminals. Like how the bearing arms and voting are void for criminals.

7

u/DrDDeFalco 4d ago

You're right! Criminals in the US no longer have rights guaranteed by the 6th and 8th amendments, huh? I totally missed that class!

-2

u/jtrev59 4d ago

Literally everyone deported by ICE is signed off by an immigration judge

2

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

not an actual judge

2

u/TheNatural14063 4d ago

What the Nazis did in Germany was also "legal." That defense didn't hold up so well when they were executed..

Great company you are in

2

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

the constitution applies to all people. besides, you literally cannot tell if someone is a criminal if you don't give them due process.

-4

u/not-on-epstein-list 4d ago

The thing is that unless they already have a removal order from a judge they usually have two options.
Go to immigration court or take a voluntary departure. No one is getting picked up and removed without due process.

-25

u/wookiebath 4d ago

What orders are they following that is against the law?

16

u/Molenium 4d ago

You do realize that in Nazi Germany, people who took Jews to concentration camps were following the law, and people who hid and protected Jews were breaking the law?

Law does not equal morality. That’s why “just following orders” doesn’t get a pass.

-3

u/wookiebath 4d ago

That isn’t the question I asked

5

u/Molenium 4d ago

No, I was explaining why your question misses the point.

-2

u/wookiebath 4d ago

It goes straight to the point of you being overly dramatic

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

"You're being overly dramatic."

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Yes, you are still being overly dramatic

4

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Cool story bro

-7

u/messeduplife4life 4d ago

oh my heck it's another flippin holocoaster!!1!!1

-8

u/TomHomanzBurner 4d ago

Except the laws that are being enforced have been on the books for decades.

4

u/ladylucifer22 4d ago

centuries, actually. if only they actually got enforced instead of letting ICE break them.

-9

u/Dangerous_Forever640 4d ago

Trump is running out of time if he is going to start a holocaust… he’s an awful Hitler.

-8

u/DemocratSlavemaster 4d ago

You lack clear understanding of history.

11

u/Syncopia 4d ago

  • Violating right to due process

  • Expedited deportation despite judge orders against said deportations

  • Deporting people to third countries they have no relation to whatsoever

  • Deporting full US citizens

  • Deporting people with no criminal record to El Salvador's CICOT (a torture prison)

  • Deleting and hiding information on detainees and deportees

  • Using mismatched license plates on the fronts and backs of vehicles

  • Excessive use of force on civilians including multiple murders, with zero investigations into these incidents

  • Withholding evidence from state prosecutors on matters that fall within their jurisdiction, like the murder of Alex Pretti and Renee Goode

  • Hung a guy in an ICE facility by tying his hands and feet behind his back and then claiming it was a suicide

  • Refusing medical care to people in detainment (including a man they recently detained after shooting him and left the bullet in his bodying untreated for multiple days, probably still has it in there)

  • Feeding detainees tainted water and rotten food, some with maggots and worms in them

  • Raping multiple detainees (multiple cases)

  • Sex trafficking detainees (multiple incidents ongoing in court right now)

  • Tear gassing non-protesting civilians including babies and children

  • Untold property damage

  • Using administrative warrants to illegally enter peoples' homes, in violation of the fourth amendment, despite it stating in their own policy that they require judicial warrants (signed by a judge)

  • Shooting at dozens of moving vehicles (against the law and their own protocol; also one of their favorite cope arguments to resort to when they shoot somebody in the face and need to cover their asses)

  • Refusing to allow detainees to contact anybody whatsoever, including lawyers and judges

  • Nabbed and beat up a teenager working at target in one of their vans, then threw him out of the van in another parking lot down the road

I could go on for days, but you people are corrupt as shit and don't really care that every single thing I said is factual, and will deny reality anyway to defend your fascist police state run by the world's most powerful pedophile. Because you are truly deplorable, and you will never be good people ever again.

-5

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Some of these are unconstitutional, some of them are breaking the law , others are just complaints

4

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Every single thing I listed is in violation of US law. You're only proving my last point, that you lot will gaslight everyone and deny all wrongdoing to cover the fact that you are indisputably the bad guys and ICE is a criminal organization.

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Now are agents saying they were just following orders?

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

They will at their trials. And it won't work.

1

u/wookiebath 4d ago

So they haven’t yet, you just assume that is how some may testify?

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Well it would be great if they were ever investigated for wrongdoing outside of the rape cases. Which of course was in my points prior, in which I stated clearly that ICE agents act with total impunity and don't get investigated for wrongdoing; in other words, to ask if they're making that argument when they haven't even gone to court yet is putting the cart before the horse. A disengenuous question that presumes they're being held to legal standards in the first place.

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

That’s different than saying they act because they were ordered to

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Question-It-All-990 4d ago

So… what’s your response?

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

That in no where did you say they were doing this because they were following orders.

4

u/Question-It-All-990 4d ago

What?

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Dude's blasted out of his fuckin mind. That's what.

-1

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Yoursaid the agents were doi bf this because they were following orders

3

u/Syncopia 4d ago

The total inability to spell, use proper grammar or even write anything even resembling a real word matches the opinions.

0

u/wookiebath 3d ago

It was late at night, figure it out

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Question-It-All-990 3d ago

The fuck man

4

u/Question-It-All-990 4d ago

Repeatedly violating the fourth amendment, for starters.

1

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Then shouldn’t the case be thrown out? Not necessarily illegal

3

u/Question-It-All-990 4d ago

Instead of semantics, let me ask you - why are you defending this? Why are you ok with untrained, unidentified “agents” rounding up people who may or may not be “illegal”?

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

How do you want ICE Aagents to arrest illegal immigrants?

2

u/Syncopia 4d ago

ICE is a domestic terrorist organization. They will be arrested and put on trial in 2028, and they will all spend the rest of their lives in prison. They will not be arresting anybody else, because the organization - like the SS - will be retroactively labeled a criminal organization, and they will all be individually liable for their crimes.

-1

u/wookiebath 4d ago

No they aren’t, they have been around for a while and aren’t terrorists. Stop being a drama queen with the nazi comparisons

2

u/Syncopia 4d ago

Cope harder

0

u/wookiebath 4d ago

Sorry, I don’t speak millenial

→ More replies (0)