President Donald Trump

We are talking that if you have credible information about kitchen workers in a restaurant being illegals, then being dressed as a kitchen worker when ICE raids there will be enough to get stopped.

Why are you all playing dumb?

you guys one day go with "in some occupations illegals are essential, such an high % of workers in this and that are illegals", and then deny that the same information can be used to stop people by ICE.

We get it that you don't want deportations to happen en mass. We know it.

Either everyone has rights or nobody has rights and what I don't want is to be a goose step away from terrorizing citizens or worse.

Why are you playing dumb?

edit: just as an aside they are converting a prison in CO into an ICE detainment center so this idea that we are just going to deport them all and not throw them into prisons where tax payer then pay to support these immigrants fully while they are locked in cells instead of doing productive things for society is somewhat laughable

It's disgraceful for Trump to suggest such a thing as [strike]we're stuck with Rosie if so[/strike] it smacks of an autocrat.

Trumps approval on immigration is tanking so the next administration is going to have to rebuild a lot, similar to last time.

He's not playing. He's just a facist and thinks this stuff is normal.

Weren't they supposed to be deporting MS 13 and Venezuelans from street gangs with funny ass names? I seem to remember that being the narrative. Yes illegals can get deported but there seems to be a xenophobia vibe here.

The government itself says that what you are describing is illegal and unconstitutional. They conceded it in this recent lawsuit:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...

Their response is that they are NOT doing generalized profiling and acting on person specific information. Except they didn’t provide a single example of that information while the plaintiffs gave multiple examples of US citizens and LPRs who were stopped, harassed, and in some cases had thier property taken.

This is like the fifth time you have said something is obviously ok when the DOJ itself isn’t even making that argument. But you know this.

What makes you think they stopped going after convicted criminal illegals as well? they are just stepping up into other directions addtionally.

The narrative is whatever they think is useful politically, same as with the left (which focuses on the best illegals being deported as is silent when the bad ones get deported). That's the narrative game.

Reality is they just got a boatload of extra funds for deportations so they will try to deport a ton more people, as they promised to do during elections.

I understand it's exceptional and unamerican for a president to actually commit on what he promised while he campaigned, and at lightning speed

Whatever legal declaration is necessary to achieve the goal technically is a different topic than what makes sense. I expect lawyers to use the path they think has the highest chance of success, whatever the factual truth instead is, that's their actual job lol.

Now back in reality if "everyone knows" that a restaurant or field is full of illegal workers, you go and raid there.

And when you end up with a ton of illegals detained raid after raid you have ex post facto proven it was probable cause.

Clearly if their contribution is essential then they should not go the **** away because that's what essential means.

So you’re cool with people lying to win and think that if you get the bad guy it’s totally fine to violate their rights to do so.

As long as we’re all clear that’s your position.

Also if that’s how you feel then why bother with saying it’s legal? Just say how you feel - these are scum and should be rounded up no matter the cost.

ex post facto probable cause is insane.

it’s an actual contradiction. you can’t have probable cause to do something retrospectively.

Just a casual reminder that Lucy is an Italian dictating that nobody who isn’t American has any rights in America or any rights to dictate American policy

And not a trace of irony could be found

If the law says they should go away they should go away no matter what your opinion on their essentiality is, IF you want to claim you care about the rule of law at all, you must care about it even when the effects of existing laws aren't of your taste.

Otherwise you can can like radical leftists do and deny laws passed against their principle have validity, which is fine, but at least you can never claim anything about the rule of law having to be applied about any topic at all ever. Which cordie instead does in this very thread and elsewhere.

He wants the rule of law to apply to the raids but it doesn't want the rule of law to apply to every single illegal (who should get the **** away). That is very disingenous.

How do you show that a target for a raid was a reasonable one probabilistically? if contested about raiding the place? by showing that there were indeed a ton of illegals

And as Lucy has crossed the 50 posts in 24 hours threshold yet again, I will take this as a moment to remind you your general existence to humanity is a net negative and you carry as much value to the world as a pothole that will pop your tire if you hit it at the wrong angle

The only people that will mourn you when you’re gone are mongo, your AI bff, and literally nobody from stormfront since you’re eurotrash

I think Trumps approval rating right now is right around at its average. But I think that youre going to need a lot more **** to hit the fan than whats going on now conisdering this will be mostly forgotten in due time.

The dems are also weaker now than they were in 2017-19 which is quite an achievement. But trump is the best shot at ****ing things uo so bad that it leaves an impression that anyone else wouls be better.

Which rights are violated by a stop from law enforcement? they can't be searched without probable cause but they can be stopped. And if they run that's probable cause for you right there.

I do care about legal residents and citizens not being harassed if possible. That's why i suggested every legal resident or citizens who might end up in contact with ICE because of how he looks, the place he works with, his accent and so on, should carry proof of citizenship / legal residence with him.

I do context the idea that constitutionally, people illegally in the country have ANY right yes, that's a different topic.

Trump approval is terrible

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

The Economist

Donald Trump’s approval rating

(it started at like +2)

173 days into Donald Trump's term
The president's net approval rating is -12%,
up 0.4 points since last week.
42% approve, 54% disapprove, 5% not sure
Last updated on July 12th 2025

The 4th Amendment protects people against searches and seizures - of property and person. You can’t stop people without individualized reasonable suspicion. It has been repeatedly and definitively held that “he looks illegal” does not meet this standard. It has also repeatedly and and definitively been held that running is NOT probable cause by itself.

None of this is questionable. Which is why even the government is not saying - in court at least - that they are doing general stops based on appearance.

But you know this.

You can stop in an ICE raid, what you can't do is the search, under the IV. There is a more plausible claim under the XIV "catch all" equal protection clause actually, but the IV is straightforward and you can stop.

Terry v Ohio (stop and frisk doesn't violate the IV) clearly applies to ICE raids in the context of places with illegal labor .

If the claim is that ICE can't randomly stop a latino in the street just because he is a latino then yes i agree (but again that would be a stronger NO under the XIV than the IV, but yes the IV would apply as well).

But if ICE raids a place with 200 workers and some start to flee it means there are illegals among them which means "a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed", which means Terry v Ohio applies.

Now the only thing the gvmnt has to do to avoid XIVa problems is to stop whites as well when they are part of the labor force of those places, which i think they do.

you just have no idea what probable cause is do you?

hint: if you do a pretextual stop and then keep them for longer than needed by one second, but you end up discovering huge bags of cocaine, the case will get thrown out.

probable cause is not retroactive

Lol bro - it being an “ICE raid” doesn’t change the legal standard. Where you getting that from?

A raid where they get a warrant beforehand and list out why they think there are illegals there to the satisfaction of a judge is different than just rolling up to Home Depot at 7am and sweeping the parking lot.

we could also point out that this Homan guy was hired, promoted, and celebrated by the Obama admin and glowingly reported on by the liberal media in that era.