|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 17:03:38 GMT
ICE needs reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation to detain someone for questioning. And they are using race, language and/or job as their "reasonable suspicion." Still racial profiling. I know you will continue to deny it unless someone is caught on video telling someone that they are racially profiling them (and maybe not even then) but it is what it is. The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. |
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 9,460
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Aug 8, 2025 17:23:04 GMT
The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. So, your reasoning is that because most of the people coming here are not white that this can't be racist because that's the majority of who is coming here? The majority of people in the US are white, but people of color are statistically still more likely to be pulled over, arrested, etc because of... ? Could you please explain why the President allowed a group of white South Afrikaners to immigrate, with pretty much zero obstacles and promised more to come, after years and years of people telling them "no" because they do not actually qualify? link |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 17:34:40 GMT
The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. So, your reasoning is that because most of the people coming here are not white that this can't be racist because that's the majority of who is coming here? The majority of people in the US are white, but people of color are statistically still more likely to be pulled over, arrested, etc because of... ? No. My reasoning, as I've said Before, is that they are looking at many more factors than just their race/skin color. |
|
|
|
Post by sassyangel on Aug 8, 2025 17:56:28 GMT
The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. So, your reasoning is that because most of the people coming here are not white that this can't be racist because that's the majority of who is coming here? The majority of people in the US are white, but people of color are statistically still more likely to be pulled over, arrested, etc because of... ? Could you please explain why the President allowed a group of white South Afrikaners to immigrate, with pretty much zero obstacles and promised more to come, after years and years of people telling them "no" because they do not actually qualify? linkI reallllly want to see (no, I don’t really) the justification for the white south afrikaners, who were allowed in - at the relative speed of light - with very little vetting time (vetting that I went through) to come here. The argument was they didn’t need to be thoroughly vetted because their american ‘assimilation’ (I really hate that word) was given. Well… they didn’t send their best. www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-refugee-just-embraced-by-trump-admin-tied-to-slew-of-antisemitic-social-media-posts/ar-AA1ENqwgAlthough clearly they will fit right in with more than a few bigoted people here. |
|
|
|
Post by marmargirl on Aug 8, 2025 18:00:28 GMT
So, your reasoning is that because most of the people coming here are not white that this can't be racist because that's the majority of who is coming here? The majority of people in the US are white, but people of color are statistically still more likely to be pulled over, arrested, etc because of... ? No. My reasoning, as I've said Before, is that they are looking at many more factors than just their race/skin color. more? Such as…? |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 8, 2025 20:30:05 GMT
No. My reasoning, as I've said Before, is that they are looking at many more factors than just their race/skin color. more? Such as…? I am wondering the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 8, 2025 20:45:49 GMT
I am wondering the same thing. Likely the things that the court also said were illegal to use: language spoken, place of employment, or location like a particular church or neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 21:20:27 GMT
I am wondering the same thing. Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 8, 2025 21:44:00 GMT
And they are using race, language and/or job as their "reasonable suspicion." Still racial profiling. I know you will continue to deny it unless someone is caught on video telling someone that they are racially profiling them (and maybe not even then) but it is what it is. The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. So how do you explain the fact that so many US citizens are being rounded up along with undocumented people? Or that they are not allowing people from certain countries (most, if not all, are majority non-white countries) to enter? And that they are ending the legal status for people from those countries? That they are advertising for ICE agents who want to "protect our heritage"? Based on your list above, ICE violates a lot of those on a regular basis, as evidenced by many of the posts on this and other threads. ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by marmargirl on Aug 8, 2025 22:37:00 GMT
I am wondering the same thing. Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Could be a legal citizen of color afraid of being violently attacked by police. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. People get regrettable tattoos all the time or wear certain clothing without knowing the meaning, doesn’t mean their here illegally Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Lots of people without close community connections, especially after the lockdown of the pandemic. Or someone who’s moved to a new community. Or someone who has cut ties with their family for a myriad of reasons. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Does not mean they are here illegally. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Could be the the only area one can afford to live/work in Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. someone might work night shift or swing shifts. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. well, if they already decided to perform a raid, I think that all of the above are moot. The point is, all of these are circumstances that white people could also be involved in or present with, but it’s only brown and black skinned people we see being kidnapped and abused. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 8, 2025 22:52:52 GMT
I am wondering the same thing. Likely the things that the court also said were illegal to use: language spoken, place of employment, or location like a particular church or neighborhood. That’s the bit that I don’t get. Since the judge said that these factors could not be used, what are they using now? |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 23:10:28 GMT
The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of people immigrating to the US are not white. Using that fact as a weapon against enforcing the law is emotional manipulation. If you want to be intellectually HONEST, you'll look to something beyond the color of their skin/race to see what makes them different from people here legally. Which is what ICE is doing. They're trained and retrained on that every 6 months. You're being emotionally manipulated by Democrats with a platform and Left leaning news sources and basing your outrage on that without knowing what those officers know when they get out of that vehicle. So how do you explain the fact that so many US citizens are being rounded up along with undocumented people? Or that they are not allowing people from certain countries (most, if not all, are majority non-white countries) to enter? And that they are ending the legal status for people from those countries? That they are advertising for ICE agents who want to "protect our heritage"? Based on your list above, ICE violates a lot of those on a regular basis, as evidenced by many of the posts on this and other threads. ![]() They aren't rounding up US citizens, that isn't policy, that's more of that emotional manipulation. Mistakes are made, but it isn't reason to oppose ICE. Mistakes are made in all professions. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, military, bankers, police, mechanics... in all professions mistakes are made. There aren't mobs attacking them or documenting them in the news while they do their job. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 23:15:06 GMT
Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Could be a legal citizen of color afraid of being violently attacked by police. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. People get regrettable tattoos all the time or wear certain clothing without knowing the meaning, doesn’t mean their here illegally Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Lots of people without close community connections, especially after the lockdown of the pandemic. Or someone who’s moved to a new community. Or someone who has cut ties with their family for a myriad of reasons. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Does not mean they are here illegally. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Could be the the only area one can afford to live/work in Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. someone might work night shift or swing shifts. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. well, if they already decided to perform a raid, I think that all of the above are moot. The point is, all of these are circumstances that white people could also be involved in or present with, but it’s only brown and black skinned people we see being kidnapped and abused. That they could be doesn't mean that they are. You really just can only see skin color? You just refuse to apply any other factors to a person besides their skin color? Really? Seriously? I think there's a name for that. If only I could remember what that is.🤔🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 8, 2025 23:15:50 GMT
Likely the things that the court also said were illegal to use: language spoken, place of employment, or location like a particular church or neighborhood. That’s the bit that I don’t get. Since the judge said that these factors could not be used, what are they using now? Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 8, 2025 23:56:41 GMT
That’s the bit that I don’t get. Since the judge said that these factors could not be used, what are they using now? Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. They say that, and some of it might be true, but then we see reports like this: www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-order |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2025 0:16:24 GMT
Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. They say that, and some of it might be true, but then we see reports like this: www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-orderAnd I wonder which of those comes into play when they tackle a granny in the street or mass arrest a bunch of guys in a Home Depot parking lot. Saying that a vehicle stop or raid can “provide context” is bullshit when they use an arrest first and ask questions later method. The quotas this administration has set and the bonuses being offered for raw arrest numbers creates an incentive for “agents” to profile based on superficial characteristics. The fact that they’re picking up and incarcerating thousands of people with no criminal history at all shows that it’s not about removing criminals at all. Any brown skinned body will do. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 9, 2025 1:39:18 GMT
And I wonder which of those comes into play when they tackle a granny in the street or mass arrest a bunch of guys in a Home Depot parking lot. Saying that a vehicle stop or raid can “provide context” is bullshit when they use an arrest first and ask questions later method. The quotas this administration has set and the bonuses being offered for raw arrest numbers creates an incentive for “agents” to profile based on superficial characteristics. The fact that they’re picking up and incarcerating thousands of people with no criminal history at all shows that it’s not about removing criminals at all. Any brown skinned body will do. Don’t forget about the American citizens that have been arrested. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 5:44:34 GMT
And I wonder which of those comes into play when they tackle a granny in the street or mass arrest a bunch of guys in a Home Depot parking lot. Saying that a vehicle stop or raid can “provide context” is bullshit when they use an arrest first and ask questions later method. The quotas this administration has set and the bonuses being offered for raw arrest numbers creates an incentive for “agents” to profile based on superficial characteristics. The fact that they’re picking up and incarcerating thousands of people with no criminal history at all shows that it’s not about removing criminals at all. Any brown skinned body will do. From the court documents linked in iamkristinl16 's article: "Plaintiff's allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a "goal" that the administration was "looking to set". That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE." |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 5:50:25 GMT
Observable behaviors: This includes actions like attempting to flee or hide from officers, providing false information, or exhibiting unusual nervousness. Physical appearance: (things like MS-13 gang tattoos) While race, ethnicity, and language cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, physical appearance in conjunction with other factors might raise suspicion. Prior encounters: A history of immigration violations or prior encounters with law enforcement can be a factor. Credible information: Information from reliable informants or other law enforcement agencies can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Ties to the community: Lack of strong community ties, such as employment or family, can be a factor, but not the only one. Possession of fraudulent or suspicious documents: Presenting false identification or documents can be a strong indicator of illegal activity. Factors related to the context: Location: Being in an area known for illegal activities or a high concentration of undocumented immigrants might be a factor, but cannot be the sole basis. Time: The time of day or night, especially in areas known for criminal activity, might be relevant. Circumstances: The specific situation, such as a vehicle stop or a raid, can provide context for assessing reasonable suspicion. They say that, and some of it might be true, but then we see reports like this: www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-orderInteresting that your article only gives the side of the plaintiffs but not the side of ICE. More of that emotional manipulation. From the court documents: "All 3 arrests arose or were the result of a targeted enforcement action in a particular location where past surveillance and intelligence had confirmed the target or individuals associated with him were observed to have recruited illegal aliens to work on landscaping jobs. It was also determined to be a location where the target and the workers would get food before heading off for a job." That's not racial profiling. That's more of those factors applied that are not race/skin color. |
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 9,460
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Aug 9, 2025 9:47:16 GMT
Again I ask: Why are the EMPLOYERS not in trouble???
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 9, 2025 11:46:22 GMT
Interesting that your article only gives the side of the plaintiffs but not the side of ICE. More of that emotional manipulation. From the court documents: "All 3 arrests arose or were the result of a targeted enforcement action in a particular location where past surveillance and intelligence had confirmed the target or individuals associated with him were observed to have recruited illegal aliens to work on landscaping jobs. It was also determined to be a location where the target and the workers would get food before heading off for a job." That's not racial profiling. That's more of those factors applied that are not race/skin color. That’s because this article is about ICE abuses. Are there not pro-ICE articles in conservative media? As far as that quote goes, the man who is quoted is an ICE official, Andre Quinones. Under your quote, it also says that “ Notably, Quinones represents only that these Plaintiffs (the workers) were at a location where the target had been seen in the past. Quinones does not state that any of the Plaintiffs are the target or associates of the target. Nor does Quinones state that agents observed the target at or near the bus stop when they delayed that Plaintiffs there.” |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2025 15:18:51 GMT
And I wonder which of those comes into play when they tackle a granny in the street or mass arrest a bunch of guys in a Home Depot parking lot. Saying that a vehicle stop or raid can “provide context” is bullshit when they use an arrest first and ask questions later method. The quotas this administration has set and the bonuses being offered for raw arrest numbers creates an incentive for “agents” to profile based on superficial characteristics. The fact that they’re picking up and incarcerating thousands of people with no criminal history at all shows that it’s not about removing criminals at all. Any brown skinned body will do. From the court documents linked in iamkristinl16 's article: "Plaintiff's allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a "goal" that the administration was "looking to set". That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE." Why do you believe that lawyers attempting to protect this administration from legal culpability are a more credible source than Stephen Miller standing on a podium and telling all of us what the goal is? Whether it’s called a goal or quota is irrelevant - the policy is to prioritize a high number of arrests without regard to criminal activity or even legal status in process. The policy is to profile to get that easy, low-hanging fruit. That’s easy to see from the concentration camps now filled with people who were following the process to get their green card or asylum approved and who had no criminal activity whatsoever. It’s not “emotional manipulation” to show some care for human rights and to be appalled by unnecessary and unjust human suffering. You’re telling on yourself with that claim. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 16:57:05 GMT
Again I ask: Why are the EMPLOYERS not in trouble??? "They do I-9 audits to ensure employers are verifying employees' work authorization. Violations can result in significant civil fines. Enforcement Trends: The number of I-9 audits can fluctuate based on the administration's policies. For example, the Trump administration significantly increased I-9 audits, completing almost 6,000 in FY2018 and 6,450 in FY2019. The Biden administration's approach was described as more relaxed in comparison. Comparison to previous administrations: The Bush and Obama administrations averaged 3,000 to 3,500 audits per year. Biden administration (2021-2024): Worksite enforcement, including I-9 audits, was generally more relaxed compared to the Trump administration. Anticipated trends (2025 onwards): Based on the Trump administration's previous actions and statements, an increase in I-9 audits and raids is widely anticipated in the coming years, particularly in industries prone to high turnover such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Some experts expect the number to be closer to 10,000 annually." |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 16:59:58 GMT
Interesting that your article only gives the side of the plaintiffs but not the side of ICE. More of that emotional manipulation. From the court documents: "All 3 arrests arose or were the result of a targeted enforcement action in a particular location where past surveillance and intelligence had confirmed the target or individuals associated with him were observed to have recruited illegal aliens to work on landscaping jobs. It was also determined to be a location where the target and the workers would get food before heading off for a job." That's not racial profiling. That's more of those factors applied that are not race/skin color. That’s because this article is about ICE abuses. Are there not pro-ICE articles in conservative media? As far as that quote goes, the man who is quoted is an ICE official, Andre Quinones. Under your quote, it also says that “ Notably, Quinones represents only that these Plaintiffs (the workers) were at a location where the target had been seen in the past. Quinones does not state that any of the Plaintiffs are the target or associates of the target. Nor does Quinones state that agents observed the target at or near the bus stop when they delayed that Plaintiffs there.” They should still give both sides, especially since they're available in a court case. Otherwise leaving out the pertinent information is emotional manipulation, not journalism. They were at the location where the target had been seen. That's location profiling, not racial profiling. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 17:03:44 GMT
From the court documents linked in iamkristinl16 's article: "Plaintiff's allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a "goal" that the administration was "looking to set". That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE." Why do you believe that lawyers attempting to protect this administration from legal culpability are a more credible source than Stephen Miller standing on a podium and telling all of us what the goal is? I believe them both. It may be the goal but it hasn't been implemented. So the incentive you're claiming as fact, isn't. So is your statement, since no one is arguing those semantics. It is NOT policy. Again, concentration camps do not offer the the CHOICE not to be there, along with $1000 cash, fines waived, travel assistance, and an opportunity to come back into the country legally. Calling this a concentration camp IS emotional manipulation. No one said that it was. You're telling on YOURSELF here with your dishonest emotional manipulation of what I ACTUALLY have said. |
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,145 
|
Post by Just T on Aug 9, 2025 17:15:49 GMT
Again, concentration camps do not offer the the CHOICE not to be there, along with $1000 cash, fines waived, travel assistance, and an opportunity to come back into the country legally. I will probably regret this, but here goes. Sorry, I decided to delete this. I'm scared enough for my dil already. I will say that any MAGA person who thinks everything ICE is doing is on the up and up is just flat our WRONG. You will eventually find yourselves on the wrong side of history. You have your heads buried in the sand, but keep on thinking whatever you need to think so you can sleep at night. ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 9, 2025 18:04:22 GMT
That’s because this article is about ICE abuses. Are there not pro-ICE articles in conservative media? As far as that quote goes, the man who is quoted is an ICE official, Andre Quinones. Under your quote, it also says that “ Notably, Quinones represents only that these Plaintiffs (the workers) were at a location where the target had been seen in the past. Quinones does not state that any of the Plaintiffs are the target or associates of the target. Nor does Quinones state that agents observed the target at or near the bus stop when they delayed that Plaintiffs there.” They should still give both sides, especially since they're available in a court case. Otherwise leaving out the pertinent information is emotional manipulation, not journalism. They were at the location where the target had been seen. That's location profiling, not racial profiling. Location? So anyone in or around a Home Depot is fair game? That is hardly impressive police work. As far as presenting both sides, ICE lost that court case. So whatever their side, evidently it wasn’t persuasive. “In a significant victory for civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, a federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without reasonable suspicion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling late Friday, marking a major legal development in the ongoing battle over immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. At the heart of the case is the question of whether federal agents can detain individuals based solely on generalized characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or language. The appeals court was clear: they cannot. A Firm Rejection of Racial Profiling The three-judge panel ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents cannot use factors like “apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work” as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop an individual. Even taken together, the court stated, these characteristics form only a broad profile and fail to meet the legal standard required for a lawful stop. “We agree with the district court that…these factors do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the panel wrote, emphasizing the constitutional protections that apply to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.“ So in fact location is not a basis for reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 18:46:15 GMT
They should still give both sides, especially since they're available in a court case. Otherwise leaving out the pertinent information is emotional manipulation, not journalism. They were at the location where the target had been seen. That's location profiling, not racial profiling. Location? So anyone in or around a Home Depot is fair game? That is hardly impressive police work. Still not racial profiling. They were at the location where the target had been seen. That's location profiling, not racial profiling. Yes, they lost the case, but the article should have said what ICE based their reasonable suspicion on and that it didn't sway the outcome, that would be letting the reader make up their own mind of what THEY thought about that. To leave it out is guiding the reader to a specific opinion wanted by the writer. That is not journalism, that is creating a narrative through emotional manipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2025 18:47:57 GMT
Why do you believe that lawyers attempting to protect this administration from legal culpability are a more credible source than Stephen Miller standing on a podium and telling all of us what the goal is? I believe them both. It may be the goal but it hasn't been implemented. So the incentive you're claiming as fact, isn't. So is your statement, since no one is arguing those semantics. It is NOT policy. Again, concentration camps do not offer the the CHOICE not to be there, along with $1000 cash, fines waived, travel assistance, and an opportunity to come back into the country legally. Calling this a concentration camp IS emotional manipulation. No one said that it was. You're telling on YOURSELF here with your dishonest emotional manipulation of what I ACTUALLY have said. lol nope on the last one. That’s exactly what you said. You just don’t like seeing it written out in plain English. If it’s not policy to prioritize arrest numbers over actually finding criminals, a whole lot of your “agents” are failing to follow policy. Why is that, do you think? And as I told your fellow cultist, a thousand dollars to uproot your whole life and family when you’re a peaceful, tax paying community member with strong ties here and/or already going through the process to be here legally (and have likely paid $$ in legal fees to do so) is an insult, not a choice. Don’t be stupid. That’s a pathetic way for you to justify the horrors you know are being done in those camps. Shame on you. The Jews had the choice to leave Germany rather than ending up in the camps, right? So they weren’t really concentration camps by your definition. Listen to how stupid that is. They are concentration camps. You just don’t like to admit it because you don’t want to see yourself or Trump as the villains. But you are, and history will remember you that way. You are helping no one and hurting thousands. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 9, 2025 19:19:20 GMT
I believe them both. It may be the goal but it hasn't been implemented. So the incentive you're claiming as fact, isn't. So is your statement, since no one is arguing those semantics. It is NOT policy. Again, concentration camps do not offer the the CHOICE not to be there, along with $1000 cash, fines waived, travel assistance, and an opportunity to come back into the country legally. Calling this a concentration camp IS emotional manipulation. No one said that it was. You're telling on YOURSELF here with your dishonest emotional manipulation of what I ACTUALLY have said. lol nope on the last one. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. You just don’t like seeing it written out in plain English. No, it isn't exactly what I said, you absolute proven liar. That is your twisted version of what I said and you absolutely know it, everyone here can see it for themselves. If that was "exactly what I said" as you're claiming I would have already written it out and your second sentence wouldn't need to be said. You are a confirmed liar. Over and over and over again. I have no problem with you continually showing yourself for the liar that you are. You're the one being stupid. As I told you before, when you break the law you don't get to dictate how it will be rectified. I don't believe the "horrors" presented as fact by lawbreakers and parroted by intellectually dishonest journalists emotional manipulators who hope to use it as a weapon against the other side. If it was an isolated incident, you might have a point, but with all of the lies and hoaxes your party has created, you have no leg to stand on. You've been exposed as liars too many times, that's why you lost. That's why you lost so many minorities and the young voters. They see it with their own eyes.
That is nothing more than emotional manipulation masquerading as righteous indignation.
You're doing exactly what they want you to do.
|
|
