this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
883 points (99.4% liked)

politics

23172 readers
3654 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

my interpretation is they had paperwork to arrest in a public venue

Incorrect. An administrative warrant gives no grounds for an arrest, it authorizes fact-finding only.

The legality of that action is what’s in question.

What law do you think allows ICE to dictate what exits to use?

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'll wait till I see the supreme court weigh in. I don't think you're wrong but that's where we are at.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If you don't think I'm wrong, why are you defending ICE here?

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not. I'm trying to be measured and not let the GOP control the news cycle.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Your entire argument has been "lets not get angry, maybe ICE is allowed to do this". That's not being measured, that's defending ICE.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, who is fighting ICE in the courts?

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Here's a similar case from last year, if you're asking for court precedents. ICE was arresting people using an administrative warrant and not an arrest warrant, and it was ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/court-rules-against-ice-knock-and-arrests

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Thank you for the info

The order clarifies that while the "knock-and-talk" practice, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered constitutional..

We will get past this. If we are smart we cannot be fooled by the trump propaganda machine.

I believe in us.