ICE protester says her Global Entry was revoked after agent scanned her face

Global Entry and Precheck revoked three days after incident, court filing says.

See full article...

 

[graylshaped]

You're assuming that we'll have midterm elections, and that they won't be rigged.

Some of us are actively working to ensure that they will happen and will not be rigged. Have you looked into whether your county would take you on as an election worker?

 

[42Kodiak42]

I suspect many Americans are counting on the midterm elections to solve the problem. If it doesn't, then the last of the democratic bulwarks is gone, and those Americans will rise up and take whatever action is necessary.

I don't expect it to really solve the problem, but I do expect it to stop the bleeding. The hope is that if the Democrats gain control of congress, then Trump won't be able to keep using emergency powers that are supposed to be contested and checked by Congress.

And that's honestly all I expect from the dems at this point. They're such a failure of a political party that I don't think they could consolidate themselves enough to actually undo all of the harm of this administration even with full control of congress.

 

[graylshaped]

I don't expect it to really solve the problem, but I do expect it to stop the bleeding. The hope is that if the Democrats gain control of congress, then Trump won't be able to keep using emergency powers that are supposed to be contested and checked by Congress.

And that's honestly all I expect from the dems at this point. They're such a failure of a political party that I don't think they could consolidate themselves enough to actually undo all of the harm of this administration even with full control of congress.

Bear in mind there is "control" and there is mere majority status. Vetos will always be out there, and the GOP will bend every effort towards painting obstructionism as "See! We TOLD you they couldn't fix anything," having not learned that even Mitch now rues his complicit actions.

 

[carldjennings]

Some of us are actively working to ensure that they will happen and will not be rigged. Have you looked into whether your county would take you on as an election worker?

Not everyone is privileged enough to be able to take off work to volunteer.

 

[graylshaped]

If you stand outside the purported crack house and shout "DEA is here! DEA is here!", it is most definitely protected speech.

I wouldn't play his game. It's not a good faith analogy. If you have been tasked with performing lookout functions, then RICO will loop you in, if not valid aiding and abetting charges.

 

[42Kodiak42]

You're assuming that we'll have midterm elections, and that they won't be rigged.

They won't be rigged. Because of how elections work in the U.S., they're shockingly hard to rig because each individual state organizes and runs their election entirely by their own rules. The blue states won't rig the election because they're not working with the administration. The battleground states won't rig the election because they actually enjoy all of the attention and promises they get from politicians. The red states won't rig the election because it's risky as hell and only does anything if they lose enough control of congress to be held accountable for rigging an election.
They won't cancel elections for mostly the same reasons, except for the Red States, who really don't want the results from blue states to stand alone as the only legitimate results of the election.

But there are ways they're going to resist the democratic process after the dems win a whole bunch of seats: They're going to delay the effects of the election as long as bureaucratic rules will allow, possibly indefinitely, and legally contest the results of some state elections in bad faith. What we need to look out for is our congress refusing to swear in democratic senators and representatives for two entire years.

 

[42Kodiak42]

Bear in mind there is "control" and there is mere majority status. Vetos will always be out there, and the GOP will bend every effort towards painting obstructionism as "See! We TOLD you they couldn't fix anything," having not learned that even Mitch now rues his complicit actions.

I'm aware, and I'm not expecting the Dems to get any laws passed at all. I'm only expecting that congress will actually use its authority to cut off the improper use of emergency powers.

 

[graylshaped]

Not everyone is privileged enough to be able to take off work to volunteer.

Many positions are paid. My sister has been an election judge for decades; I had an admin assistant once who requested (and I granted) time off every election to do the same here in California for many, many years.

Once upon a time, I'd have suggested you contact N.O.W. but they have stepped back a bit from taking on elections as a core issue and I truly don't know who--if anyone--has filled that void. Anyone else have ideas?

 

[TylerH]

"die" above, was OBVIOUSLY a typo and was intended to be "does". That you decided to knit-pick that is just petty. You know what I meant and decided to play dumb.

It wasn't "OBVIOUSLY" a typo, or I wouldn't have commented on it. I recommend you don't put words in peoples' mouths or assume bad intent here, especially when you are the one who made the mistake. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to behave seriously here. Typos aren't a big deal, but taking it as a personal insult when you make a typo and then insulting the person for assuming the meaning-changing typo was intentional is what's petty. YELLING ABOUT IT is also petty.

Another pointless quibble. Your status as a known safe traveller should not be based on exercising 1st amendment protected behavior to simply be present in a place where ICE officers are. That is, after all, what she was doing. She was present and witnessing their behavior. If this is allowed to stand, then it effectively criminalizes occupying space in public.

Pointing out that the words you chose have a different, incorrect meaning is hardly a 'pointless quibble'. Just because you don't like that your poor choice of words made your commentary factually incorrect doesn't mean my correcting them is pointless or quibbling. It means you need to choose your words more carefully. Loathe as I am to paraphrase Scalia, words have meanings.

The Global Entry program does not claim to make any changes to your rights under the Constitution, including your 1st Amendment rights, so I don't know what you're talking about, here. 'Irrelevant information', indeed.

What the Global Entry program's background check is for is determining, based on your profile, whether you pose or could reasonably pose a threat to the US government or the people by virtue of your travel and activities. This includes whether you've traveled to countries known to generate radicalized terrorists, as well as whether you've ever tried to violently overthrow any government, including the US government especially, among other things.

All travelers that are allowed to board mass transit like airplanes are deemed safe travelers... that should be obvious by the fact that TSA and airport (or whatever transport hub) security allow them into the premises and to board the mass transit. But not all travelers are afforded a predetermined status of "known safe" traveler for the purposes of expedited transit across national borders.

The US Government sets the rules for transit across its national borders, and thus it can choose, at its own discretion, to create programs like Global Entry (or CLEAR, or NEXUS, or any other program) to expedite or wave the enforcement of these rules. It can also, at its own discretion, disqualify people from participating in these programs for whatever reason it chooses to, so long as none of those actions violate any existing, superseding laws or a citizen's or state's Constitutional rights.

If she had threatened the officers, or physically obstructed them, then maybe this is about them being "known" to be safe. But that is not what is reported to have occurred, and your defense of their behavior (punishing someone without due process) is fascist apologetics.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the comments you've been replying to. I have not defended anyone's behavior here, least of all ICE or the federal government. Can you please re-read and point out where me describing what the Global Entry program is qualifies as 'defending their behavior' (whoever 'their' refers to here?) or worse, the insulting 'fascist apologism' you're accusing me of?

Note, this is a rhetorical question, because I know you can't, since it doesn't.

And just so you can't continue to hide behind a lack of understanding nuance any further, I don't, and have never in this thread agreed with the relevant US government officials' decisions regarding the article subject's revocation of Global Entry permissions, which, based on what the article says, smacks of retaliation for protected activities.

 

[Truscott]

I know that. But when you are in the US on a visa, there are vague terms like "moral turpitude" that you have to abide by. So while you may have the 1A right to say something, that can also be used as justification for visa cancellation via one of those vague conditions. I don't agree with this, and think it is morally reprehensible, but that's the way this regime rolls. (And also why I am not attending anything anti-ICE protests in person, because I don't want my status revoked)

Many years ago my boss, a big analytical chemist, who had risen through the ranks of academe, assembled us, his face aglow with relief. He told us that, when he was hired, he could be thrown out for, "Moral Turpitude. As he rose higher through the ranks, he could be thown out only for," "Gross Moral Turpitude" But now he could be thrown out only for, "Gross and Persistant Moral Turpitude.

 

[graylshaped]

So wasn’t zip tied and wasn’t shoved into a van? When she was verified she was released. And your problem was a lack of an apology?

Have you ever taken one of those assessments, often incorrectly called personality types, that are more geared towards helping understand how one gathers and processes information, and maybe how one interacts with others of similar or different styles?

I think you need to do that, because you are doing none of those things in a manner that is working well for you here.

edit: In good faith, I'll answer your rhetorical question regarding what my "problem" was with the situation by repeating what I said that somehow left this a question in your mind: "ICE is using that as a pretext for normalizing the seditious belief that petitioning the government for redress deserves punitive retaliation."

Capisce?

 

[Komarov]

So wasn’t zip tied and wasn’t shoved into a van? When she was verified she was released. And your problem was a lack of an apology?

You're a bit of an asshole, aren't you. Conveniently ignoring the two paragraphs of relevant context. I sure hope it happens to you, too. Bet you'll be buying the ICE goons fruit baskets.

Just don't forget to carry vaseline wherever you go, it makes the waiting easier.

 

[graylshaped]

It wasn't "OBVIOUSLY" a typo, or I wouldn't have commented on it. I recommend you don't put words in peoples' mouths or assume bad intent here, especially when you are the one who made the mistake. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to behave seriously here. Typos aren't a big deal, but taking it as a personal insult when you make a typo and then insulting the person for assuming the meaning-changing typo was intentional is what's petty. YELLING ABOUT IT is also petty.



Pointing out that the words you chose have a different, incorrect meaning is hardly a 'pointless quibble'. Just because you don't like that your poor choice of words made your commentary factually incorrect doesn't mean my correcting them is pointless or quibbling. It means you need to choose your words more carefully. Loathe as I am to paraphrase Scalia, words have meanings.

The Global Entry program does not claim to make any changes to your rights under the Constitution, including your 1st Amendment rights, so I don't know what you're talking about, here. 'Irrelevant information', indeed.

What the Global Entry program's background check is for is determining, based on your profile, whether you pose or could reasonably pose a threat to the US government or the people by virtue of your travel and activities. This includes whether you've traveled to countries known to generate radicalized terrorists, as well as whether you've ever tried to violently overthrow any government, including the US government especially, among other things.

All travelers that are allowed to board mass transit like airplanes are deemed safe travelers... that should be obvious by the fact that TSA and airport (or whatever transport hub) security allow them into the premises and to board the mass transit. But not all travelers are afforded a predetermined status of "known safe" traveler for the purposes of expedited transit across national borders.

The US Government sets the rules for transit across its national borders, and thus it can choose, at its own discretion, to create programs like Global Entry (or CLEAR, or NEXUS, or any other program) to expedite or wave the enforcement of these rules. It can also, at its own discretion, disqualify people from participating in these programs for whatever reason it chooses to, so long as none of those actions violate any existing, superseding laws or a citizen's or state's Constitutional rights.



I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the comments you've been replying to. I have not defended anyone's behavior here, least of all ICE or the federal government. Can you please re-read and point out where me describing what the Global Entry program is qualifies as 'defending their behavior' (whoever 'their' refers to here?) or worse, the insulting 'fascist apologism' you're accusing me of?

Note, this is a rhetorical question, because I know you can't, since it doesn't.

And just so you can't continue to hide behind a lack of understanding nuance any further, I don't, and have never in this thread agreed with the relevant US government officials' decisions regarding the article subject's revocation of Global Entry permissions, which, based on what the article says, smacks of retaliation for protected activities.

Oh, man, I saw the distinction you were trying to make and thought "this room isn't in the mood for 'well ekshually" on this..."

Good for you for trying it. It's kind of invigorating, huh?

 

[Chuckstar]

Not to mention this part from Section 8, which puts the whole "well-regulated militia" in a different light:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I tend to shrug when people start to get into the weeds about the militia clause. The problem is that it Is longstanding common law doctrine that first you look to the operative clauses of document, and only if the application to a specific situation is vague do you look to any clauses that provide clarification/intent.

Of course, even the issue of what is vague is open to interpretation, but the point is that the basic doctrines of legal wording make the militia clause necessarily secondary, rather than primary, to any interpretation of the 2nd.

However, more specifically to your comment and the one you were responding to, to-date even SCOTUS has agreed that lots of different types of regulation can be constitutional, with the bright line they’ve set being that blanket bans of personal firearms would be unconstitutional. Banning full-auto, having magazine size limits, having registration requirements, etc. have all been upheld to-date. Yeah… there’s lots more regulation we could do constitutionally than we do now, at least according to current SCOTUS jurisprudence.

 

[graylshaped]

All the left does is reshape the narrative with misstatements and falsehoods. Then take issue with those that disagree. And finally take shots at personalities, wealth, education and appearances. Why not stick to the issue?

You seem to have a very dubious grasp on what the issue is.

What, in clear and simple terms, is the issue as you see it? Is it reshaping the narrative that we can plainly see what happened on video from multiple angles that Noem, Bovino, Miller, and Trump have all declared to be NOT what we see with our eyes?

 

[Chuckstar]

I used to look down on regular Russian citizens for allowing Putin to exist. Now I’m seeing myself on their side of it more and more, and I’m starting to understand. What am I going to do about this that doesn’t involve throwing my own remaining liberty away? This is how dictators get away with what they do. It “makes more sense” for me to try to ride it out, hope something else resolves it, even though it disgusts me and I know the cost of us staying on this path is catastrophic.

We will not have legitimate elections anymore, and nearly everyone is asleep. We’ve already lost almost everything we held dear as a country (or in the case of Republicans, pretended to), it just hasn’t finished catching up with us yet. Thanks to everyone who voted for this, I hope you get everything coming to you.

Freedom isn’t free.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

Gandhi would have left off the “and tyrants” part, since he believed the patriots shouldn’t engage in violence, but otherwise he would have agreed, also.

I remember a conversation with a co-worker not long after 9/11. He was on board with all kinds of awful stuff, like racial profiling, Muslim bans, torturing suspected terrorists, etc., because he thought such stuff made him safer. I didn’t even bother arguing whether that stuff actually made anyone safer. I just said “I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than live in the country you envision.” I meant it then and still feel the same way.

 

[VividVerism]

So wasn’t zip tied and wasn’t shoved into a van? When she was verified she was released. And your problem was a lack of an apology?

I'm having a very hard time believing you actually would think everything is fine and dandy if the police pulled you over and kept you detained for multiple hours when you had done nothing wrong whatsoever. And they did this multiple times. It is very difficult to take you seriously in implying you are actually unable to conceive any scenarios where having hours of your time stolen would be outrageous treatment. Things like being hours late for work, missing dinner, missing life events, children's activities, and milestones. Even just having your evening stolen, for doing nothing wrong.

And then there are people being detained for days or longer without cause. And treated in exactly the way graylshaped's mother-in-law feared. Her fears didn't come from out of nowhere. It's happening, and being a citizen is not protection.

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10...ica-white-house-deportation-immigrants-sweep/

If they're not citizens maybe they're even shipped off across the country in the process, even if they have an active asylum claim granting permission to legally stay in the country.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-minnesota-boy-detained-a1ef2144c03a0136ef123f5a3685ee44

But I think you know all that. I can't legitimately believe you think any of this would be OK to do to you. So why is it OK to do to others?

 

[42Kodiak42]

You bringing up the fact I supported the only presidential candidate who isn’t a war criminal is pretty funny when you consider Kamala Harris just bought an 8-million dollar mansion in Malibu - that’s where Harris is right now. That where she goes after she loses a presidential race so badly they have to bury their own party’s postmortem report - because it literally says, “we lost because we murdered hundreds of thousands of children.”

You liberals just get upset because I consistently point out you all don’t actually have a problem with genocide . I mean, you say you don’t really like it, but we all know you will support it as long as someone with a “D” before their name is committing it. History has show that to be a fact.

That’s the real difference between a leftist and a liberal, by the way.

Alright, let's go into the the total disproof of your point with political strategy.
For starters, the U.S. uses a minor variation of First Past the Post (FPP) elections called the electoral college. While the electoral college has drastic effects on voter turnout, motivation, and political campaigning, it has no effect on the mathematical deficiencies of FPP. Here's a primer on why FPP always results in two parties and the start of the explanation as to why democratic voters support a party they vehemently HATE. It is always in our strategic interests as voters to support the party we regard as the lesser evil in the main election. We get two choices when the main election comes around, Democrat and Republican, and you can look at that Wikipedia link for the mathematical proof that there is no third option and will never be a third option that doesn't completely sabotage the representation of our interests.

So, now that I've made it clear that we get the choice between R & D, and you're interrogating us about why we're supporting someone who "supports genocide" and how we don't see ourselves as supporting that genocide by supporting those political candidates: Most of us have assigned a non-negligible probability that Harris would denounce the Gaza genocide and a high probability that she would attempt to mitigate its severity in some way. Meanwhile, we have correctly assumed that Trump would never mitigate the Palestinian genocide, a likely possibility that he would make it worse, and a strong possibility that he would abandon support for Ukraine in their defense against Russia. What does abstaining from the election result in? Surrendering your voice and letting your countrymen pick one of those two options on your behalf. I hold no grudge against those who were overwhelmed by choosing the lesser evil, but I will decry and denounce those who thought that abstaining has any moral superiority. If you thought politicians didn't care about you when you voted for or against them, they don't even have a way to care about those who don't vote.

So, if Harris won, there's a chance the Palestinian genocide would be mitigated, but it would certainly never get worse than the status quo of letting the IDF do as they will with equipment committed as a part of our alliance. And Trump winning has resulted in the US denouncing the ICC, the organization with the unenviable task of attempting to bring justice to Netanyahu for his role in that shitshow. Therefore, voting for Harris was the only course of action on election day that actively worked against that genocide you're trying to assign us responsibility for as though Trump wasn't going to make things worse.

 

[crmarvin42]

You're assuming that we'll have midterm elections, and that they won't be rigged.

this is Pro-republican doomerism. Knock it the fuck off.

The Republicans want an election, because there are a lot who want a new office (Senators who want to be governor, etc.). The election will not be free or fair, but then that has never been completely true (gerrymandering, etc.). However, there WILL be an election, because BOTH SIDES want and need one.

Stop spreading Russian/republican propaganda. If you are bot, then fuck off. If you are someone who is just internalizing what bots have told you, open your eyes and stop doing their work for them. Either way. Stop saying this shit. it helps no one except the enemy.

 

[crmarvin42]

[mixture of tone policing, and indignant rage because I called you out on playing dumb on purpose]

The sentence only made sense one way. Either you are an idiot who cannot pick up the missing/mistaken word from context clues (as any middle schooler could), or you were playing dumb for the "gotcha". I assumed you were smart and so went with the later. Thank you for correcting me. I will assume you are an idiot next time as you suggest.

The Global Entry program does not claim to make any changes to your rights under the Constitution, including your 1st Amendment rights, so I don't know what you're talking about, here. 'Irrelevant information', indeed.

No, but the constitution contains the 4th amendment. As someone else pointed out in this thread revocation of known safe traveller status, and thereby TSA-precheck/Global Entry benefits, is required to notify of your status change, AND to allow you to challenge that decision. Neither of those things happened here, and so her 4th amendment rights were violated.

What the Global Entry program's background check is for is determining, based on your profile, whether you pose or could reasonably pose a threat to the US government or the people by virtue of your travel and activities. This includes whether you've traveled to countries known to generate radicalized terrorists, as well as whether you've ever tried to violently overthrow any government, including the US government especially, among other things.

No, these programs are to determine if you represent a threat to your fellow passengers and the plane. Not if your actives or travel are a threat to the government writ large. That is what the no-fly list is for, as you yourself pointed out earlier. If you are going to lecture, please be consistent.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the comments you've been replying to. I have not defended anyone's behavior here, least of all ICE or the federal government. Can you please re-read and point out where me describing what the Global Entry program is qualifies as 'defending their behavior' (whoever 'their' refers to here?) or worse, the insulting 'fascist apologism' you're accusing me of?

Note, this is a rhetorical question, because I know you can't, since it doesn't.

And just so you can't continue to hide behind a lack of understanding nuance any further, I don't, and have never in this thread agreed with the relevant US government officials' decisions regarding the article subject's revocation of Global Entry permissions, which, based on what the article says, smacks of retaliation for protected activities.

DHS violated this woman's right to due process under the law. In violation of their own policies. And you are basically saying that what they did was not a problem. That is a defense of their actions here. Everything else is hand-waiving distraction.

 

[OrvGull]

True story time: I went to Calgary for a professional conference and got pulled over at the airport for "special screening". At the time there was a bust in US oil production and a boom in Canadian, so they were being swamped by geologists and geophysicists and home-grown ones were starting to complain.

"What do you do?"

"I'm a geophysicist." (No, I didn't get into the details; at border crossings, that confuses people and makes things take longer.)

"Why are you coming here?"

"For a professional conference. I've got three papers to present."

"And that's the only reason?"

"Yes, that's the only reason."

"I mean, after the conference, you'll go back home, right?" WINK, WINK

"Oh! Yes. I am only here to attend the conference and after the conference I will go right back home."

STAMP, STAMP "Welcome to Calgary!"

There was a WRC-style rally event in Canada, and volunteers helping with running it were cautioned not to use the words "work" or "rally" with border patrol. Lest they think we were taking their jobs, or getting involved in something political.

 

[TylerH]

Oh, man, I saw the distinction you were trying to make and thought "this room isn't in the mood for 'well ekshually" on this..."

Good for you for trying it. It's kind of invigorating, huh?

I often try to ignore people for being wrong (who has the time?); we all get stuff wrong, myself included. But when they not only criticize my remarks with horribly false and often nonsensical statements (like in this case), but then also throw in a tirade of insults toward me, I just can't let it stand.

Homeboy's gonna learn today, even if it's painful for him. I guess learning cost him an ejection from the thread in this case.

 

[TylerH]

The sentence only made sense one way. Either you are an idiot who cannot pick up the missing/mistaken word from context clues (as any middle schooler could), or you were playing dumb for the "gotcha". I assumed you were smart and so went with the later. Thank you for correcting me. I will assume you are an idiot next time as you suggest.

Doubling down on me being the stupid one when you are the one who made the mistake is... certainly a choice.

 

[graylshaped]

Homeboy's gonna learn today, even if it's painful for him. I guess learning cost him an ejection from the thread in this case.

Given how well attempts at repeatedly nudging multiple people away from live wires today has worked, no. My optimism about human nature is tempered by the practical reality that many people not only do not learn from the mistakes of others, they blame those others for their own mistakes. The sad part is knowing that's who they are while asking if they are sure they want to play with those wires labeled "high voltage."

edit: also, in the post above me, ixnay on the oopidstay language...

 

[Bernardo Verda]

In President Obama's November 20, 2014, address to the nation on immigration:

"Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. ... Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids."

From the same speech:
"If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

But Orange man bad, amiright?

Insert classic Whooosh! (Over-your-head/Missing-the-point) GIF here:

That's a spectacularly bad failure in reading comprehension, too -- for your sake, I actually hope you bungled it on purpose.

 

[VividVerism]

There are no "ICE Death Squads". Now if she had gone fully armed and engaged with DHS's lawful enforcement actions on criminal and illegal aliens, then yes she may have been shot.

Peacefully protest, but don't interfere and certainly don't physically engage the police while armed.

And above all, don't get disarmed, pinned to the ground, and THEN shot in the back. It's all your fault for dying, really. Learn to take a bullet and not be a pansy about it.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

There are no "ICE Death Squads". Now if she had gone fully armed and engaged with DHS's lawful enforcement actions on criminal and illegal aliens, then yes she may have been shot.

Peacefully protest, but don't interfere and certainly don't physically engage the police while armed.

There are no "ICE Death Squads". Now if she had gone fully armed and engaged with DHS's lawful enforcement actions on criminal and illegal aliens, then yes she may have been shot.

Peacefully protest, but don't interfere and certainly don't physically engage the police while armed.

Death squads are, as death squads do:

US Border Agents Intentionally Stepped in Front of Moving Vehicles to Justify Shooting at Them
An internal review of the US Border Patrol raises serious questions about the agency’s use-of-force policy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a...-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/

Decade-old probe found immigration agents stepped in front of cars to justify shooting
https://www.thenation.com/article/a...-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/

 

[graylshaped]

In President Obama's November 20, 2014, address to the nation on immigration:

"Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. ... Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids."

From the same speech:
"If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

But Orange man bad, amiright?

Yes, Orange man bad. Did you read this bit: "Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids" ? It appears to have escaped your notice that stipulation didn't make it into the current build.

You get how that's different, right?

 

[Statistical]

The point I'm making is that your border security privileges can be revoked at their discretion. Calling a security guy a pig during a border security crossing, like at an airport, will likely get your privileges revoked.

Not legally. Calling a security guard a pig is protected speech. Is the 1st amendment a right or a privilege to be granted by the state? If it is a right then imposing restrictions for engaging in the lawful exercising of a right is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter how trivial you think that privilege (Global Entry) is. What matters is WHY is was restricted. Was it restricted for the legal exercising of a right? Then Unconstitutional. It is that simple. If that isn't the case we don't have rights.

Not that rule of law matters to this administation or nazi boot lickers like yourself.

 

[VividVerism]

In President Obama's November 20, 2014, address to the nation on immigration:

"Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. ... Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids."

From the same speech:
"If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

But Orange man bad, amiright?

If Trump was primarily deporting criminals, you MIGHT have a point. As it is, however, only about one in three people arrested by ICE under Trump have a criminal conviction. Another third have pending charges, but the rest have no criminal history to speak of. This is a drastic change from Obama (and Biden) policy.

Even among the criminal convictions whom Trump's goons do manage to pick up:

Among those with criminal convictions detained by ICE, 8% were convicted of violent or property crimes (about 5% were violent criminal convictions).

“And that includes very minor assaults. I mean, not like rape and murder,” Bier said in a radio interview with KPFA on Jan. 22. “These are someone had an altercation at a bar or things like that, not serious violent criminals who committed murder and rape.”

Contrary to administration rhetoric about targeting the worst of the worst, Bier described the arrests under Trump as “indiscriminate.”

“They have removed the prioritization that was in place under the Biden administration to go after those violent criminals that they’re highlighting,” Bier said. “They got rid of that policy and replaced it on Day One with a policy of arresting people who are the most convenient to arrest.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2026/01/a...-a-higher-portion-had-no-u-s-criminal-record/

The two enforcement policies are nothing like each other. Pretending they are equivalent and that we're unfairly targeting Trump for acting in a drastically different way and targeting drastically different people is dishonest to the point of trolling.

 

[emercer]

I’m a citizen living outside the US, and we decided not to visit the US until this is over. That decision seems less paranoid and more reasonable every day .

As a Brazilian living abroad who did not visit Brazil during the Bolsonaro years, I sympathize. But I fear that, unlike Bolsonaro, Trump will not go behind bars for this.

 

[numerobis]

There were no major protests when Biden and Obama were deporting people, because they were doing it within the bounds of the law.

There were protests though.

DHS was founded for the purpose of ethnic cleansing in the wake of 9/11 and has been fulfilling its mission assiduously for nearly 25 years. There were protests about the founding of DHS, there were protests under Bush and under Obama, Trump, and Biden. The sanctuary city movement got big under Bush, specifically to avoid cooperating with ICE; the 2008 campaign included lots of tough talk about sanctuary cities by the GOP. It only get bigger under Obama, the deporter-in-chief, who got ICE to be more efficient.

Current protests are about fascism throughout the entire government, rather than having it concentrated into one camp within government.

 

[numerobis]

As a Brazilian living abroad who did not visit Brazil during the Bolsonaro years, I sympathize. But I fear that, unlike Bolsonaro, Trump will not go behind bars for this.

The US already failed that test. Trump should have been behind bars on January 7, 2021. But he was allowed to roam free and run for office again after an insurrection. The US constitution is just some ink stains on a piece of paper.

 

[OrvGull]

The US already failed that test. Trump should have been behind bars on January 7, 2021. But he was allowed to roam free and run for office again after an insurrection. The US constitution is just some ink stains on a piece of paper.

The problem was the Constitution; the first amendment protected what he said, even though the result was criminal behavior by other people.