runako 关于 ICE 计划 1 亿美元“噩梦”国内间谍项目的评论

So long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts, congress, or the whitehouse then these things will continue to metastasize.

The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.

That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.

I'm sorry to tell you, you're wrong.

That's what I'm talking about: people have no clue, but presume they did anyway.

Look at who actually benefits from Trumpism.

Pinning it on this or that billionaire is simplistic at best. You have to actually look at what's happening on the right, not just parrot tropes.

The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.

That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.

Yet they continue to ignore court orders when those rights are found to have been violated.

The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.

Can I buy the same weapons the American military has access to?

Until that's true, the 2nd amendment is meaningless when USAF can buy JDAMs and F35s and I, an American citizen, cannot.

It’s been meaningless ever since the courts decided the “well-regulated militia” part doesn’t actually mean anything. It was never meant to be carte blanche access to every weapon under the sun

Even if you had access to all the munitions on paper, it would be extraordinarily surprising to wake up one day to the news that US citizens collectively out-gunned the US armed forces. I mean, F35s are not famous for being cheap.

Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?

Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.

Regarding who maintains them: that’s my problem to have _after_ I buy them, but today I can’t even buy them! And I picked a high-end example, of course I couldn’t maintain an F35 but maybe I would like some automatic rifles or more realistically some armed drones.

Still I think we’re saying the same thing: the founder’s arguments amount well regulated militias being a check on tyrannical government doesn’t land when the tyrannical government can just drone swarm the country into submission.

18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

A DOJ with its ducks in a row would be charging this left and right.

5 year statute of limitations, unlimited if it results in death.

Unless he pardons literally every ICE agent, a new administration can and certainly should levy all kinds of charges. That's one reason folks have been documenting so much about what's going on even if it can't be stopped right now.

This is what surprises me about the U.S. citizens who oppose Trump's fascism - why be so naive about the rule of law and adherence to the constitution when both have already been shown to be virtually meaningless without a non-partisan judiciary and enforcement of court orders.

Also, why do people think that Trump is so hurriedly building a new ballroom for the White House along with the bunker underneath? At some point it'll either be people giving in to Trump's administration or out-right civil war and that's why Trump wants a secure bunker and an armed militia (ICE) that is loyal just to Trump.

Even if people vote against Trump in sufficient numbers, he's not likely to accept that and leave.

Play your scenario out further, not just to the extent it serves your point. What do you think 200 million furious Americans looks like? Even assuming a willing military (besides ICE), how does the US occupy itself? It's a massive territory.

If the citizens do revolt, then they'll be unstoppable.

However, if we look at the Nazi takeover of Germany, it seems that most people will just go along with it which certainly seems to be the case in the USA so far.

How many Americans have guns and actually oppose this government? Remember that only 32% actually voted for the "other guy", and I suspect the other 68% carry more guns on average than that 32%. Plus, they've already deputized many of those in defense of the regime (through ICE) and released and/or shielded many others (through pardons).

While Republicans certainly have a focus on illegal immigration, support for spying on American citizens is hardly a partisan issue.

ie: 25 years of Patriot Act renewal, Flock rollouts in liberal cities, Obama’s pursuit of Snowden and not the NSA itself

There is certainly liberal leadership concerned with our rights, just as there are conservatives, but they are the minority under both partisan umbrellas.

If you have some information on how much they approve or support these programs i'm open to hearing it, but i'm not sure how much "Both parties have bad people/policies" contributes to a discussion on this specific program.

This is shifting the goal posts. You said this will continue to happen as long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts[0], congress[1], or the whitehouse [2; sic] - which kind of implies (actually not kind of, it directly implies) that if only there were some more Democrats around this wouldn't happen. So "both parties do this" is absolutely a valid criticism of your point and one you probably have to address.

[0] Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.

[1] Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes

[2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?

If anything i'm asking for the conversation to stay 'on-goal'.

If I take for granted that the waterline surveillance increases under previous administrations (and i do, i implicitly conceded it) then the only meaningful discussion is then on its magnitude.

So you tell me, are Republicans going further with this program than before? And furthermore, are Republican courts and Republican congresses going to curtail it at any point?

I already know my answers to this, but if i'm going to be criticized I think it should be against the meaningful alternative facing us where Republicans retain control of these branches.

> Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.

Doesn't matter if the damage is already done. Raise dead doesn't exist in the real world. And the courts don't decide things. The executive has proven it will just ignore the courts.

> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes

First, this it 100% not true, and secondly, if you ignore congress, it doesn't matter. And once again, the damage is already done by the time congress gets around to it.

> The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?

Expect? None. Hope for? Basic respect to the rule of law to start. But with pdf in the white house, all bets are off.

> most courts are liberal-leaning.

this isn't Europe, so if you make that claim, you have to define "liberal"

> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes

in fact that's not how it works! read up on reconciliation and how ICE got funded

> [2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?

both sides that fucker, good and hard, better things aren't possible woo!

In my fairly wealthy and liberal community, the mayor (a Democrat) approved a Flock contract and refused to hold a public hearing on the issue until it became a nationwide story, at which point the contract was ripped up. The community was told to kick dirt until it became a political liability, and that's the point.

Political leadership doesn't want civil discourse until it becomes a self-preservation concern for them, same with data centers.

Stylistically, the local Democrats who putatively represent me listened and got rid of flock. They replaced it immediately with Axon.

So, yeh, red is certainly a different color than blue, but they are still two colors.

Even so, scale, severity, and flaunting of the law matter. Current political powers have turned it up to 11. You can absolutely "both sides bad" in general, but I don't think you should be doing so within this context or it's disingenuous / whataboutism.

My response is not whataboutism.

It is “don’t expect the Democrat party to save us when they come back into power at the Federal level. With regard to erosion of privacy rights, I don’t see a positive track record for them.

Please surface to me what I’m missing and I’m happy to change my mind.

I disagree, it's important to discuss because it indicates that neither party is capable or interested in deviating from the current trajectory. Say the Republicans are voted out of power this cycle, who's really confident that the trajectory of all of this is going to meaningfully change in the next decade based on what we've seen in the past without a major shakeup in the political system?

It's the same core group of people controlling the centers of power in both parties for many years now, and it's not realistic to expect meaningful change for as long as they remain in power

Republicans mistreated legal immagrants with particular pleasure and revoked their legal status.

Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.

Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.

Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)

This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.

All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.

"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.

> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program

Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.

No, I am just literate enough to understand that the executive office was not solely responsible for the 'Snowden reporting' and that it is responsible for the proposal in the article above. The democrats did not create or propose a 100M domestic surveillance program but go off king

" Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works. "

I'm not giving political analysis, retard. But you are clearly so smart and clever. Tell us all about the 'Snowden reporting' that president Obama personally proposed and executed. Not sure why he is reporting on himself but mister user seven numbers is sure to be a source of truth

> The democrats did not create or propose

They funded and instrumented it. “Go off king”? Are we 14 year olds on TikTok here?

You sound very angry, guess I got a little too close to home. The lady doth protest too much.

to sandbag and continue the narrative that 'both sides are bad' during a time in which only one side has the power. really compelling stuff

They are both bad. Every administration has used and advanced these types of programs. That’s inconvenient for those who wear a tribal badge.

Stubbing your toe is bad. Digitally raping a woman is bad. Bringing up the former in the light of the latter makes you a jack ass. Do as you will

Funding dragnet surveillance vs funding dragnet surveillance is the comparison. Not precisely sure what your bizarre example means but it’s nevertheless clearly a non-sequitur.

I think the content of my post, and the post I'm replying, makes it pretty obvious. What has you confused?

>> Abolishing ICE and DHS

Ya, I am a fan of the coast guard... and I think we need the FAA/TSA to keep the planes running on time. And FEMA might be laughed at in some quarters but a federal disaster response is something we should have ahead of hurricane season.

What does the Coast Guard have to do with my comment? It was founded in 1915 in its current form and has existed since 1790. DHS is only 24 years old, and was a reactionary response to a terrorist attack.

That's like saying that "abolish the AT&T monopoly" somehow means abolishing all phones.

No, what happens to the grouped-whole is not necessarily what happens to the parts.

Ah, technically correct, my favorite kind! And ignoring the very clear point of the person you're responding to... excellent.

Or, pointing out the idiocy of the statement "get rid of the DHS", a wide umbrella agency, by showing the speaker lacks any basic understanding of what that agency is or does.

Clearly you've transferred a bit from your "old life" to your "new life". People who happily put on uniforms to make war can suck it.

Obviously we're not talking about getting rid of FAA or FEMA, but rather breaking up DHS back how it was before and getting rid of ICE. TSA doesn't do jack squat and is almost entirely security theater; it needs to go.

And FEMA is now so ridiculously politicized maybe it does need a rebuild, when you have leadership debating whether aid is deserved or granted based on whether a county or state voted for the malignant narcissist in charge.

Yeah bring back INS, but also disqualify anyone employed by the current DoJ or DHS from holding civil service employment in the future. Hopefully they'll be facing prison or even more severe criminal penalties for their conspiracy against rights.

I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.

You should rethink your position as it's not going to give you the electoral wins you think it will.

I will never support deporting people already here unless they commit felonies. It's cruel and immoral. People come here for a better life and work opportunities, the immigration system needs reform, and nobody goes after the employers who typically support Republicans.

This is a huge, wealthy country. There's plenty of room and economic opportunity. The undocumented are not the problem. They're scape goated.

But even setting all that aside, ICE and DHS need fundamental reform, so might as well abolish them and create new agencies with all new employees.

You can always spot the addicts mainlining outrage pornography by how often they bring up the last president that didn't have the right letter next to their name.

> the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.

This part always pisses them off for some reason and any conversations around this cannot be had in a civil manner here without suppression. It's a real insult to people who spent years, sometimes decades, coming into a country legally.

I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars coming here legally. I don't care.

You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their families do/did. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's penthouse for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.

That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.

Sure, and the way you feel about this is completely understandable. However, two things can be wrong at the same time. Both illegal immigration AND Melania's case can be wrong. But, using Melania's case to justify the illegal immigration is just strawman's fallacy.

The part that should actually make you mad is that the statistic is complete bs - totally false - but its taken as ground truth across the entire political right from politicians to media to influencers to the base. How and why did it get this way?

More like 3rd world conditions in general.

Homeless people EVERWHERE doing the Fent lean, with no effective programs to fix the issues in sight. Ever increasing amounts of people that don't even speak the language, let alone participate in the culture. Don't forget the trash and filth everywhere, and boarded-up shops and housing.

I've been to multiple cities and suburbs on the west and east coast, in the midwest, and the south, and they all have these issues to varying degrees.

At a certain point, you have to ask yourself legitimately: What is the difference between walking outside in the US and some country like Afghanistan? The difference is becoming increasingly narrower.

Repeat after me: concerns about illegal immigration are not a justification to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Period.

The reason this "pisses off" us freedom loving people is we're sick of hearing your hyperbolic talking points repeated as if they have any bearing on the argument whatsoever, while you continue to glibly talk past the relevant criticism of how you're actually cheering on the destruction of our country.

A bunch of people crossing a border illegally can't destroy a country - just like how some planes being flown into office towers can't either. However, throwing our rights, values, and institutions in the trash as a "response" does.

> concerns about illegal immigration are not a justification to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

But, I am not drawing a parallel for justification, here. Both can be wrong at the same time.

In the context of this thread, it's an implicit justification.

If you earnestly do take issue with both while correctly prioritizing the meta issue of Constitutional rights, I'm sorry that the fascists have poisoned the well on your immigration issue and burnt up its political capital.

I'm ambivalent about immigration myself, but suffer the exact same shitty dynamic from felon musk (et al) waxing dishonestly about individual liberty. Now when I make arguments in support of individual liberty, I need to include much more nuance and disclaiming to distance myself from the fascists' talking points, lest what I say be taken in support of their disingenuous rallying lies.

Biden actually deported more then previous president. However focus was on criminals.

But, right wing must always lie.

> I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.

This statistic is completely false. But you can use is as a good credibility filter. Media figures and politicians who make this claim are liars - stop believing what they say. You'll become much more well informed overnight.

An estimated 2-2.5 million immigrants were allowed to reside in the US as immigration cases were pending. Most came through ports of entry, some crossed "illegally" (a misdemeanor).

There were an estimated ~9 million apprehensions. This is the number they cite to mislead you. Apprehensions does not mean 9 million unique people, nor does it mean they all now reside in the US.

Most of those people were deported or ejected. And most of those were actually the same people trying to cross multiple times. An unintended consequence of Title 42 (the covid restrictions imposed during Trump term) was an explosion in repeat crossing attempts.

Formal deportation makes it a felony to return. Under Title 42 though people were just ejected without formal deportation and could try again without consequence. Cartels/Smugglers even started selling packages that involved multiple tries to cross the border.

I've always been curious about this mentality, but i've never met one in the wild. So do you think no immigration or coastal defense should be allowed? Does that mean everyone can just come in?

ICE and DHS were both consolidated in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The functions they perform existed before, it was just a re-org whose goal was improved information sharing.

The most common variant of the "abolish DHS" opinion simply holds that this re-org was unsuccessful and should be reverted.

I don't talk to people who don't engage in good faith. Your ignorance is not my problem to solve.

The person you are responding to was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there is some sensible nuance you didn’t mention.

They are the one acting in good faith rather than interpreting your statement literally, because your literal statement was absurd.

DHS and ICE are younger than I am. Do you believe we had no immigration and coastal defense in 2000?

Your ignorance is also not my problem to solve.

uhhh... Yes...? The 90's was a hotbed for deportations, and bill clinton spent alot of his presidency reforming immigration to be more exclusive. We had the same amount. The Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is what set the laws and regulations. 2003 was just a reorg. abolishing those agencies would not create the same conditions as the past as the responsibility for enforcing the act was transfered to those newly created federal agencies.

So, what i should of asked is do you disagree with the immigration laws put forward in 1996? Do you believe that laws should be enforced?

Because abolishing ice is not the answer... Because now the responsibility of enforcement lies within the justice department. It seems what you seem to be saying is that our immigration law is too exclusive, and we need to give out citizenship freely, with all the benefits that comes along with that instead of deporting people and their families?

Edit: By the way... this shit comes in cycles.

Do you think we have the same immigration concerns and issues we did pre-ICE and DHS? The Biden years saw unprecedented levels of immigration, a consequence we're paying for now.

Your ignorance is not our problem to solve.

What are the new issues and concerns we have to deal with now that we didn't pre-9/11? Somehow the hijackings of the 70s let up without everyone taking off their shoes.

Do you think there was no border protection prior to the creation of the DHS in 2002? We had immigration and border protection before 9/11 hysteria.

I recall watching live when second tower was hit. US commentator immediately understood the situation and remarked how this is end of an era of freedom and how this will unavoidably bring massive surveillance state aparatus in place from now on and how entire world will be affected negatively. He was 100% correct in all he said.

But lets be clear - its US public that allowed this, over and over. Saner candidates were suppressed as not patriotic enough, entire worse than pointless wars were waged and millions died for nothing. Not US passport holders so I guess thats just an afterthought.

Dont expect rollback in your lifetime. We havent reached even the bottom yet, not with current voting mindset. Still this is what US population wants, I don't see >200 millions even just protesting.

The part that gets me is how many useful idiots who are smart enough to know know better will cheer for these things when sold piecemeal. Your DEP starts trawling the cell phone location records to nab some guy who sold bad dirt. Your traffic cameras tell law enforcement how to tailor their revenue generation toward those who can't push back. Your school system monitors social media to nab some teenager for selling vapes his older relative bought. And people cheer. They call it progress.

Only when the comprehensiveness of this 1984 is presented in an unflattering way like "we're gonna snoop on everything so ICE can round people up" (or an AI camera goes up on every street corner) do they even become uneasy.

> Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?

You know what's funny, everything you said is valid, but, I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums. It's actually the opposite. Somehow spying is ok if they like the company.

A lot of users here have vocally admitted that having Flock cameras was okay because they were a HOA member and it gave them security of some sort and they had "nothing to hide"

Another example was Anthropic getting caught stenographically marking requests[1] and Anthropic's response when they got caught was simply "it was just an experiment" and everyone on here said it's okay.

> Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?

I wish we asked this question to all our favorite tech companies too, this being a tech forum and all.

[1] https://thereallo.dev/blog/claude-code-prompt-steganography

> I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums.

Are we on the same platform? Search Flock on HN, below are the top results

Stop Flock

Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

This Flock Camera Leak is like Netflix For Stalkers

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera

YouTuber Says Cops Visited Him After He Built a Flock-Style Camera to Track Cops

Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization” (2025) [video]

I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

An interactive map of Flock Cams

Flock and Cyble Inc. weaponize “cybercrime” takedowns to silence critics

Hackers Got Inside a Flock Camera

Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

Flock Hardcoded the Password for America's Surveillance Infrastructure 53 Times

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=flock

The link you shared - Those simply are submitted titles to HN, not necessarily the discussions around them. If you read most of them, it's usually pro-surveillance and the argument is almost always along the lines of "I've got nothing to hide"

I wonder how much of the people who comment in defense of these kinds of things work for Flock/Palantir or something surveillance related. Often when there's discussion of ads you also have people who chime in with "I think personalized ads are very useful" comments. And I'm intensely suspicious of these since seeing someone get called out once.

Exactly, I appreciate the comment and I think this is exactly the kind of critical question we must ask when someone tries to normalize surveillance.

> I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums

I have entirely the opposite impression of HN - I feel like I hear a huge amount of (rightful) resistance to that kind of surveillance.

If you want to build a stasi-like system then the answer to all that’s yes - which seems to be what the majority of us citizens is in favour of, otherwise they wouldn’t have elected this admin

This is why Trump is acting like he's on the ballot in November.

Since he is the face of the Republican party, voters understand they are evaluating his decisions and performance since 2024, and will be voting accordingly.

> Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1].

Your source does not establish this. "arresting" and "detaining" objectively do not mean the same thing; and the detentions described are clearly based on a good-faith belief that the subject either is not legally permitted to be in the country or is unlawfully interfering with immigration enforcement.

Where citizens have been arrested, it is not for "immigration charges" at all, but for obstruction of justice. These arrests are based on more than "probable cause"; they based on it literally observably happening right in front of the officers.

The law empowers them to make arrests in these cases, in exactly the same way that ordinary city cops are empowered to arrest people who disobey lawful orders, attempt to flee from detention, attempt to physically intervene in the arrest of someone else, etc. This is exactly as expected, because they are legally recognized as federal LEO.

The spin in this article is incredible:

> Top DHS officials, including former Secretary Kristi Noem, went further, claiming that filming ICE agents was interfering with arrests.

This is disingenuous. The problem is not "filming" ICE agents. The problem is standing in places that physically obstruct the act of arrest while holding up your cell phone. It's notable how, in videos of contentious incidents, we commonly see many people recording on cell phones in responsible ways, who are completely left alone.

Moving on:

> Some US citizens have been deported.

No; at most they evidence that people claiming to be citizens have been deported.

Your source does not name a single person who a) they can prove to be a US citizen on publicly available information and b) has been deported.

> but ICE has supralegal powers.

No, they do not. Their powers are enumerated in statute, in particular 8 USC 1357.

ProPublica is putting an obvious spin on the facts and it spirals out of control in discussions like this one. It is a real game of broken telephone.

> US citizens "can't" be deported

Source: I'm a naturalized citizen.

Naturalized citizens can be deported and their citizenship can be revoked in cases of violent crime or other immoral behavior. That information is provided when swearing in.

It's more accurate to say that US citizens who are law abiding and moral, or who are born in the US, can't be deported.

Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.

US citizens cannot be deported.

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.

Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.

US citizens cannot be deported.

(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)

Technically it's as soon as it's provided. Once you are a citizen the only way in which it can be revoked is if you are found to have committed fraud during the immigration process.

Yeah, I'm going further and saying there should be a time limit on even the fraud piece. If a person lied on their application 50 years ago, it's too late.

The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)

This.

Also, with this administration, if you didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't' somewhere in your paperwork, citizenship can be revoked.

Basically, if they catch you in any kind of lie. It's fraud.

Could be ex post facto and seemingly innocuous act unconnected to paperwork as well. You came in. Applied for asylum. Went through the process. And, finally, you were naturalized.

Only you traveled back to your hometown in your country of origin at some point. Before or after naturalization.

Boom.

They got you. That's fraud.

Everyone needs to stay extra careful going forward.

> after naturalization

Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.

Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?

Naturalized citizens really are a different class.

* The US passport lists your place of birth, barring you from entry into certain other countries, if you were born in countries they don't agree with.

* Your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported as we discussed above.

* You cannot be elected to certain offices.

> barring you from entry into certain other countries

This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?

There really should be a time limit on revocation.

re: offices, it's just President & VP that are (Constitutionally) off the table, right?

>This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?

Yes it is. The passport is not a permission slip for leaving. It's a letter authored by the US government on behalf of a citizen requesting their safe passage into another country [1]. When the US requests one person's safe passage they write "spit on this guy", but another doesn't get that negative language.

Country of origin is a constitutionally protected class. If my passport meaningfully and functionally differs from yours, based on that classification, then it stands to reason that my civil rights are being violated.

[1]: "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection." -Text of the US Passport

I don't think you've understood.

The fraud a migrant may have committed, should the US be able to prove it, is lying on their asylum request when they said they would be, for instance, killed if they ever go back to their country of origin.

Obviously if you show up at your country of origin with a US passport asking to be let in, it casts serious doubt as to the veracity of the assertion that you will be killed if you ever go back to your country of origin.

Here's the thing, the US has to prove it. Which previous administrations never bothered to go to the trouble of doing. However, this administration is pouring over travel records, airline passenger manifests, cell phone and text message data, etc etc. They've taken to pursuing these cases.

All that to say this, now is not the time to believe there is some legal trickety-trick you can use to get around these issues. Your passport would mean nothing in the case that the Trump-Vance MAGA boys prove fraud, because you would have been shown to have used fraudulent statements to attain that passport.

So to any immigrants out there, please, please, please, don't play games with these people. Because they are not playing games with you. Be very careful to keep your story, (the one you told immigration), and your actions consistent. At minimum until such time as Trump leaves office. But in my opinion, you should probably just strive for consistency from here on out. Because MAGA can be elected back into power at any time convenient even if they lose the next few elections.

And if they get elected again, when they come back, you can bet everything you own that they will be digging through that data from the time they were out of power.

You've misread then. I also recommend people don't give anyone a reason to deport them, especially now. Read back, you'll see that I'm saying exactly that.

My commentary is to advocate for staying factual. It doesn't help anyone's cause to charge the conversation with sort of true information, out of context, and mixed with a lot of opinion and emotion.

Panic isn't helpful. Understanding the reality of the circumstances is. I think we can all agree on that.

Characterizing the propublica pieces as "fake immigration charges" is pretty misleading. All of their arrests of non-illegal-immigrants has been for (bogus) charges unrelated to immigration, usually some variant of "obstruction".

"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.

"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.

There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.

> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization

You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.

In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.

The situation under which citizens have been detained have always been claimed to be for obstruction. I am not aware of a single case where an individual was detained for immigration charges who was not specifically targeted for enforcement, although since ICE is not public about this (and they cannot be in order to protect the accused) it is hard to say for sure.

The link recounts one case, the one I mentioned, Garcia, and the circumstances around his deportation are complex at best. No question that ICE was mistaken on the facts, but the situation was complex -- he had crossed the border into the US illegally; he did have a Mexican passport with a different spelling of his name. I am not aware of any others and the propublica does not cite any others. Please give names if you are aware of any.

My claim was that you mischaracterized the propublica article and I stand by it. You claimed that US citizens were being detained on fake immigration charges and this is not the case (Garcia was a mistake but the charges were not fake, they were just incorrect). You claimed that US citizens have been deported, and the article only provided a single example, which does not support the claim of "people", that being the plural of "person".

The Garcia case illustrates the various lies embedded in ICE. They say they target people with deportation orders, which is obviously false based on ICE statements and testimony in this and other cases.

It also highlights the importance of adherence to the due process guarantees of the Constitution; Garcia was deported before being allowed to prove his citizenship in court. A US citizen is allowed to have had a passport issued in another country; how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name? The main point here is the Constitution prescribes how all this is to be handled, and ICE does not want to do it that way so they don't. That's a huge problem here.

Anyway, you asked for names. I'll just pull from the ProPublica database. Most of these boil down to ICE habitually violating Constitutional due process. I'm omitting "obstruction" charges. This person:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bronx-man-wrongfully-de...

These two people were deported on fake immigration charges, and then deported. Two individuals, "people," being the plural of "person." "Fake" charges, because people born here are not subject to immigration charges.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/03/12/orlando-born-twin...

This citizen was illegally arrested:

https://www.investigatemidwest.org/a-new-immigration-strateg...

I am going to pause here to remind you that citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American." Many/most Americans do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Fewer carry one. Most children do not have picture IDs at all.

And why should they? We are not required to do carry proof of citizenship, even if we are physically proximate to people who are not here legally. Which none of us generally know about the people near us. Outside of my family, I have only seen a handful of citizenship documents of other people I assume are citizens. I would not testify to anyone's citizenship outside of my family, whose citizenship documents I personally procured.

Here's a citizen being arrested because ICE agents did not like his accent. Again, a reminder that many citizens, even of those born here, have accents. That does not change their citizenship in any way or require them to carry proof of citizenship.

https://www.kptv.com/2026/01/18/border-patrol-agent-detains-...

Et cetera.

The first and third cases were not deportations. They were bogus obstruction detentions.

"how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name?" -- part of the complexity of the case, as I note, is that he did in fact enter illegally, smuggled across the border. He did not have to enter illegally; he could have simply presented his passport at any border crossing (or, lacking a passport, an affadavit), but nonetheless he did.

The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.

I agree that American citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship and agree that they should not be required to present papers to prove citizenship.

But you are describing a world that does not exist. No US citizens are being deported mistakenly (Garcia being the lone exception). Notably, this has not always been the case -- under previous administrations there have been numerous cases of citizens being deported, but in the Trump administrations this has not been the case (with the exception of Garcia). We are not living in a nightmarish dystopia.

You initially wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE illegally deporting US citizens, even going so far as to define plural. Now you say it was just those two (which I found in under 5 minutes), certainly there were no others.

You wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE arresting US citizens of fake immigration charges. Now you characterize ICE as making up bogus "obstruction" charges to arrest US citizens. I'm not sure it matters what fake (or, I'll use the synonym you prefer: "bogus") charge goes on the sheet. By nitpicking, you've conceded that there should be masked secret police harassing US citizens over whom they have no jurisdiction.

You are not willing to engage with the core problem issue that I have raised repeatedly, which is that ICE engages in Constitutional violations as a standard operating procedure. For that reason, I'm out.

Read my first reply again and tell me who is nitpicking.

Don't fall into the conspiracy theory trap. ICE can be bad even if they aren't demonic agents of evil. When you believe dramatic but untrue and easily disproven things your world view is going to continue to disconnect from reality.

> The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.

On what grounds were those children deported? They were US citizens who had family who were US citizens, whose parents have, in some cases assigned guardianship to said families.

Why were they deported? Citizens who as you say, were not charged with any sort of immigration crime.

Why were they deported? Farcical deportation hearings with 2 year olds (and in one case, an 11 month old in a car seat) "defending themselves" "pro se" against ICE lawyers arguing for deportation over again, as you acknowledge: US citizens, not charged with a crime. Because however much Trump would not like it to be (and for positively hilarious irony, Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka all benefited from it), birthright citizenship is still a thing, and neither a post on Truth Social or an EO override the Constitution.

They were deported because their parents were deported and they accompanied them.

In most cases where this occurs this is the parents' preference (this is also the official DHS policy). In several cases (propublica says about a dozen out of the approximately 11,000 citizen children detained during deportation proceedings against their parents) it has been disputed that this was the preference.

Whether this is administrative error or individual malice or institutional malice is unknown. Even in the worst case this does not seem to be a policy since it has occurred in a tiny minority of the total cases.

In all of these cases, the children are free to reenter the country and remain; they are citizens. This is obviously not ideal; there are various lawsuits in progress to compensate the families for the cost and trauma of the removal. But this is not a widespread campaign to kick out citizen children of illegal immigrants.

In several comments in this discussion alone -you- have made a statement, and when someone builds on it, -you- have walked it back and said "well, we don't know that".

Like this.

You:

> Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives.

When I replied, and added further context, then you walk it back.

> They were deported because their parents were deported and they accompanied them. In most cases where this occurs this is the parents' preference

Well, in this case, it wasn't. As you yourself acknowledge.

Except then you change your acknowledgment to:

> it has been disputed that this was the preference

> Whether this is administrative error or individual malice or institutional malice

No, it's pretty clear that in this case its both individual and institutional malice, given that attorneys for the extended family were there, as well as attorneys for the deported parents.

And in some of these cases the federal judge has recognized all this and DHS has said "fuck it, we're going to walk right out of this courtroom and straight to the airport, try to stop us".

Which has led to nationally televised news incidents where judges have given extraordinary emergency orders to turn deportation charter flights around, and DHS has still said "nah, we're not going to do that, judge".

But what do you expect when one of the leaders of that organization spent most of his "leadership" cosplaying as a literal fucking SS officer?

> In all of these cases, the children are free to reenter the country and remain; they are citizens

LOL. In some of those cases, the children are 11 months old. Their parents have been deported. They have been deported. How are they getting in again? And you'd have to have an optimism that is thoroughly detached from the reality that led to them being deported in the first place to think that, regardless of Constitutional rights, there's not a non-zero risk of CBP at the border denying entry. They were never meant to be deported, what makes you think they'll be let back in? Their rights? Their right to not be forcibly deported was summarily ignored, why will this one be treated as sacrosanct?

"Obviously not ideal" you say. No shit. And then you act, throughout the thread, like the only possible alternative is "no laws/no enforcement, of anything, in any way". What?

The crux of my point is that things are not as bad as the OP is pretending they are. To a literally insane degree.

Any process has some level of mistakes; ICE is operating at a level of mistakes that is remarkably _LOW_ given the complexity of the issues it is facing.

The level is LOW, not high.

If institutional malice is to blame, then why did we only get a bad outcome a dozen times out of the ~11,000 times that they've encountered the situation (minors detained with illegal immigrant parents)?

If ICE agents are all SS officers determined to deport anyone with an accent or the wrong color skin, including citizens, why has this only happened ONE TIME! ONE TIME! ONE TIME! Out of the literally nearly a million deportations. ONE SINGLE TIME.

What are we even talking about here?

> Any process has some level of mistakes; ICE is operating at a level of mistakes that is remarkably _LOW_ given the complexity of the issues it is facing.

Nobody (except maybe ICE leadership) knows how many mistakes they've made since 2024, because Republicans have removed every bit of oversight they could. You cannot reasonably assume to know about all their mistakes, since the administration has been repeatedly caught covering their tracks.

You also cannot reasonably assume that every mistake is being publicized, because a) we're talking about people who are less likely to have contacts in the US willing to go to the media, and b) the administration has demonstrated their open disregard for the law, so anyone going against them has to fear being treated like Garcia and co.

The main place where ICE has removed oversight has been when they have detained people; they don't document clearly whether the detention was for immigration or suspected immigration offenses or more general obstruction offenses. After the fact, they split these claims, saying that all detentions not resulting in immigration enforcement were just "obstruction" all along. So we have no idea how often they are detaining people because they think that they are illegal, but, on finding out that they are legally present or citizens, claim that it was obstruction all along.

I think we're in agreement here that the administration has pushed to limit accountability and auditing, and ICE and ERO and DHS and Border Control have all been using this to make themselves look like they are much more well-intentioned than they likely are. Where we differ is that you think they are successful at this, that they are portrayed as competent and earnest despite the reality. Whereas I see that they have been vilified to an almost insane degree in almost every media outlet that I have exposure to.

But the thing that they can't lie about, that they can't cover up, is deportations, because these are big news and everyone knows it, and false and improper deportations are a huge deal and have been every time they have surfaced. That you think there are more cases that have not been chased down by lawyers hungering for a lawsuit and NGOs champing at the bit to try to bring these people forward is disconnected from reality to a degree that I can't comprehend.