2025 and Beyond Domestic Rightist Violence Thread

[UNI88]

He said, she said is accurate but mcclaughlin, bovino and others have been caught in enough lies to question the truth of what they're saying here. They've lost their credibility.

As far as warrantless searches, you're partly right that ICE often uses administrative warrants for immigration enforcement actions. Under generally established law, administrative warrants don't allow ICE to enter homes without a judge’s warrant or consent. This will play out in court and I expect the lower courts to enforce traditional Fourth Amendment protections and require judicial warrants for forced home entries outside of narrow, already established exceptions. An appeal to SCOTUS is the wild card - will they carve an immigration-specific exception? Or will they uphold classic home privacy protections? A true originalist like Antonin Scalia would very likely reject the idea that ICE can force entry into a home using only an executive-issued administrative warrant. We'll see what this Court does if it gets that far.

The warrant thing will be interesting and I'm not sure how it will be parsed. It's been an issue for quite some time - under other administrations (both Dem and GOP) the restriction of not using an administrative warrant to enter a house to get an illegal immigrant who has already been through all their judicial procedures and due process and has a deportation order has resulted in immigration officials sitting outside of houses and the persons still resisting deportation waving to them from their windows. It would seem in those cases, especially with due process being fully used up, that this shouldn't happen. But it does. Sanctuary policies and local and state governments not only not working with immigration officials but in fact working against immigration officials. A true originalist like Scalia could fall back onto the Constitution and say the Executive branch has the authority to carry out the laws and can remove immigrants with deportation orders. A judge like that could also fall back that it's the federal government, not the states or local, that dictate immigration laws and that sanctuary laws and refusal to cooperate with federal officials runs contrary to the Constitution as well.

The recourse for law enforcement to "persons still resisting deportation waving to them from their windows" is to get a signed judicial warrant allowing them to forcibly enter the house. That's the way our system is intended to work. We shouldn't allow short cuts because the system/process is inconvenient for those in power. That is a pathway to abuse.

I don't think Scalia believed that executive enforcement power overrides the Fourth Amendment or that federal supremacy erases individual constitutional rights.

Blaming this on sanctuary laws/policies is a red herring IMO. Sanctuary laws/policies do not block ICE from seeking judicial warrants, prevent ICE from entering homes with valid judicial warrants or override federal supremacy. The federal government is free to sue state and local government with sanctuary laws/policies over whether they run contrary to the Constitution or not.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would expect Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson to rule against and Thomas and Alito to rule in favor of the ICE policy. As usual, it will come down to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and Roberts.

[BDKJMU]

The child was abandoned by his father. This rates up there with Trump being a Russian spy.

The left has gone full retard over ICE.

[BDKJMU]

There is plenty of reason to question whether she actually hit Jonathan Ross. You would know that if you actually pulled your head out of your ass and the MAQA yahoo echo chambers you get your information from ...



Nice job ducking/dodging the completely justified shots at MAQA over their self-proclaimed support for family values. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

Did you not see the video from the cop's perspective and the fact the hospital agreed he was hit.

Lying liars gonna lie.

I commit a certain crime with my child in the car and we get separated. Holy shit you've gone off the DEEP end.

Yep, TDS really is a mental disease.

[BDKJMU]

Why does it matter if she hit him or not?
There were several ICE agents in the street and around her car, but that didn’t stop her from recklessly peeling out like a nut

She was acting like an unhinged lunatic interfering with ICE from doing there already dangerous job …. But despite that, that’s not what got her shot

Ummm there’s video showing what happened here. You guys are in denial, believing everything that comes out from the administration.

“Peeling out”

“Unhinged lunatic”

That would apply to the entire whistle & horn brigade trying to follow ICE all over the city.

[BDKJMU]

I have nothing to hide. If the local police and city officials were allowed to help ICE, a lot of these situations would not happen.

I don’t either but it’s highly intrusive nd violates my constitutional rights. Those are pretty damned important to us all.

Well, I bet you don’t live with any illegal alien sexual predators, am I right?

[GannonFan]

The warrant thing will be interesting and I'm not sure how it will be parsed. It's been an issue for quite some time - under other administrations (both Dem and GOP) the restriction of not using an administrative warrant to enter a house to get an illegal immigrant who has already been through all their judicial procedures and due process and has a deportation order has resulted in immigration officials sitting outside of houses and the persons still resisting deportation waving to them from their windows. It would seem in those cases, especially with due process being fully used up, that this shouldn't happen. But it does. Sanctuary policies and local and state governments not only not working with immigration officials but in fact working against immigration officials. A true originalist like Scalia could fall back onto the Constitution and say the Executive branch has the authority to carry out the laws and can remove immigrants with deportation orders. A judge like that could also fall back that it's the federal government, not the states or local, that dictate immigration laws and that sanctuary laws and refusal to cooperate with federal officials runs contrary to the Constitution as well.

The recourse for law enforcement to "persons still resisting deportation waving to them from their windows" is to get a signed judicial warrant allowing them to forcibly enter the house. That's the way our system is intended to work. We shouldn't allow short cuts because the system/process is inconvenient for those in power. That is a pathway to abuse.

I don't think Scalia believed that executive enforcement power overrides the Fourth Amendment or that federal supremacy erases individual constitutional rights.

Blaming this on sanctuary laws/policies is a red herring IMO. Sanctuary laws/policies do not block ICE from seeking judicial warrants, prevent ICE from entering homes with valid judicial warrants or override federal supremacy. The federal government is free to sue state and local government with sanctuary laws/policies over whether they run contrary to the Constitution or not.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would expect Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson to rule against and Thomas and Alito to rule in favor of the ICE policy. As usual, it will come down to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and Roberts.

Well, considering that most judiciaries in the areas where there are sanctuary laws and other policies to thwart federal laws and enforcement are often politically on the same side with the local officials who created the sanctuary conditions (many judges in these locales are elected or appointed by local officials) then it does create a problem where these warrants can't be easily obtained. But the comment about "erasing individual constitutional rights" is odd, because in these cases, where an illegal immigrant has gone through all the steps to try to overturn deportation, has gone through all the due process, and now has a deportation order and is just awaiting pickup, it's not that they have lost any constitutional rights. Heck, given the due process they go through and the years to get there, it's hard to make an argument that they're losing rights. If there was cooperation between local officials and federal at the point that the deportation orders were signed, then none of this would be necessary. As for the judges, sure, Sotomayor and Jackson will be on the opposite side of Thomas and Alito, but I wouldn't throw Kagan in there as a reflexive no - she's shown herself to be far more inclined to follow the law rather than a partisan approach.

[UNI88]

The recourse for law enforcement to "persons still resisting deportation waving to them from their windows" is to get a signed judicial warrant allowing them to forcibly enter the house. That's the way our system is intended to work. We shouldn't allow short cuts because the system/process is inconvenient for those in power. That is a pathway to abuse.

I don't think Scalia believed that executive enforcement power overrides the Fourth Amendment or that federal supremacy erases individual constitutional rights.

Blaming this on sanctuary laws/policies is a red herring IMO. Sanctuary laws/policies do not block ICE from seeking judicial warrants, prevent ICE from entering homes with valid judicial warrants or override federal supremacy. The federal government is free to sue state and local government with sanctuary laws/policies over whether they run contrary to the Constitution or not.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would expect Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson to rule against and Thomas and Alito to rule in favor of the ICE policy. As usual, it will come down to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and Roberts.

Well, considering that most judiciaries in the areas where there are sanctuary laws and other policies to thwart federal laws and enforcement are often politically on the same side with the local officials who created the sanctuary conditions (many judges in these locales are elected or appointed by local officials) then it does create a problem where these warrants can't be easily obtained. But the comment about "erasing individual constitutional rights" is odd, because in these cases, where an illegal immigrant has gone through all the steps to try to overturn deportation, has gone through all the due process, and now has a deportation order and is just awaiting pickup, it's not that they have lost any constitutional rights. Heck, given the due process they go through and the years to get there, it's hard to make an argument that they're losing rights. If there was cooperation between local officials and federal at the point that the deportation orders were signed, then none of this would be necessary. As for the judges, sure, Sotomayor and Jackson will be on the opposite side of Thomas and Alito, but I wouldn't throw Kagan in there as a reflexive no - she's shown herself to be far more inclined to follow the law rather than a partisan approach.

Federal judicial warrants are issued by federal judges, not local officials, and sanctuary laws do not constrain federal courts. A final order of removal resolves legal status, not the Fourth Amendment requirements governing entry into a home. Constitutional protections are not exhausted by due process, and inconvenience or lack of cooperation has never been a justification for executive self-authorization. The remedy for enforcement difficulty is judicial oversight, not abandoning it.

Can I make that same argument about ChongLy Thao? He’s a U.S. citizen who had no prior proceedings, no removal order, and no opportunity to assert his rights before they were violated. If administrative warrants and executive determinations are sufficient to justify home entry, then the protection supposedly provided by prior “due process” collapses entirely — because the same mechanism applies even when there was none. That’s why judicial warrants exist: to prevent mistakes, abuse, and after-the-fact justifications.

[Caribbean Hen]

There’s video? really?

Yeah, I watched it. I haven’t heard anything the administration has said.

Try again

If you watched the video why are you suggesting she peeled out?

You mean that you’ve concocted these fantasies in your own head?

she pulled out pretty fast …did she not?

Especially in our neighborhood like that with law-enforcement officers surrounding her car

That is what cost her her life

[UNI88]

Well, considering that most judiciaries in the areas where there are sanctuary laws and other policies to thwart federal laws and enforcement are often politically on the same side with the local officials who created the sanctuary conditions (many judges in these locales are elected or appointed by local officials) then it does create a problem where these warrants can't be easily obtained. But the comment about "erasing individual constitutional rights" is odd, because in these cases, where an illegal immigrant has gone through all the steps to try to overturn deportation, has gone through all the due process, and now has a deportation order and is just awaiting pickup, it's not that they have lost any constitutional rights. Heck, given the due process they go through and the years to get there, it's hard to make an argument that they're losing rights. If there was cooperation between local officials and federal at the point that the deportation orders were signed, then none of this would be necessary. As for the judges, sure, Sotomayor and Jackson will be on the opposite side of Thomas and Alito, but I wouldn't throw Kagan in there as a reflexive no - she's shown herself to be far more inclined to follow the law rather than a partisan approach.

Federal judicial warrants are issued by federal judges, not local officials, and sanctuary laws do not constrain federal courts. A final order of removal resolves legal status, not the Fourth Amendment requirements governing entry into a home. Constitutional protections are not exhausted by due process, and inconvenience or lack of cooperation has never been a justification for executive self-authorization. The remedy for enforcement difficulty is judicial oversight, not abandoning it.

Can I make that same argument about ChongLy Thao? He’s a U.S. citizen who had no prior proceedings, no removal order, and no opportunity to assert his rights before they were violated. If administrative warrants and executive determinations are sufficient to justify home entry, then the protection supposedly provided by prior “due process” collapses entirely — because the same mechanism applies even when there was none. That’s why judicial warrants exist: to prevent mistakes, abuse, and after-the-fact justifications.

And to add ...

I find it interesting that many strong Second Amendment advocates — who rightly argue that constitutional rights must remain robust precisely because the government can be mistaken or abusive — are willing to narrow the Fourth Amendment when enforcement becomes inconvenient. The logic used to justify warrantless home entry (“they already had due process,” “efficiency matters,” “the Executive needs flexibility”) is the logic gun-control advocates reject when it comes to the Second Amendment. Either constitutional rights constrain the government before abuse happens, or they don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[kalm]

I don’t either but it’s highly intrusive nd violates my constitutional rights. Those are pretty damned important to us all.

Well, I bet you don’t live with any illegal alien sexual predators, am I right?

No. And neither did the old Hmong man we’re talking about.

[kalm]

Well, considering that most judiciaries in the areas where there are sanctuary laws and other policies to thwart federal laws and enforcement are often politically on the same side with the local officials who created the sanctuary conditions (many judges in these locales are elected or appointed by local officials) then it does create a problem where these warrants can't be easily obtained. But the comment about "erasing individual constitutional rights" is odd, because in these cases, where an illegal immigrant has gone through all the steps to try to overturn deportation, has gone through all the due process, and now has a deportation order and is just awaiting pickup, it's not that they have lost any constitutional rights. Heck, given the due process they go through and the years to get there, it's hard to make an argument that they're losing rights. If there was cooperation between local officials and federal at the point that the deportation orders were signed, then none of this would be necessary. As for the judges, sure, Sotomayor and Jackson will be on the opposite side of Thomas and Alito, but I wouldn't throw Kagan in there as a reflexive no - she's shown herself to be far more inclined to follow the law rather than a partisan approach.

Federal judicial warrants are issued by federal judges, not local officials, and sanctuary laws do not constrain federal courts. A final order of removal resolves legal status, not the Fourth Amendment requirements governing entry into a home. Constitutional protections are not exhausted by due process, and inconvenience or lack of cooperation has never been a justification for executive self-authorization. The remedy for enforcement difficulty is judicial oversight, not abandoning it.

Can I make that same argument about ChongLy Thao? He’s a U.S. citizen who had no prior proceedings, no removal order, and no opportunity to assert his rights before they were violated. If administrative warrants and executive determinations are sufficient to justify home entry, then the protection supposedly provided by prior “due process” collapses entirely — because the same mechanism applies even when there was none. That’s why judicial warrants exist: to prevent mistakes, abuse, and after-the-fact justifications.

Nope. And any spin out was due to icey roads.

You hit the nail on the head in “surrounding her car.”

[kalm]

Ummm there’s video showing what happened here. You guys are in denial, believing everything that comes out from the administration.

“Peeling out”

“Unhinged lunatic”

That would apply to the entire whistle & horn brigade trying to follow ICE all over the city.

Oh ma gosh! Whistles?!? And horns?!?

Madness!

[kalm]

They’re probably all packing too. (Whistles and horns)

[UNI88]

They’re probably all packing too. (Whistles and horns)

250% of those people are all totally unhinged and radical violent leftist purple haired lunatics.

[BDKJMU]

Well maybe if the state of MN would bother to cooperate with the Feds with the status of violent felons ICE would have known that one was in jail.

So only one of the 2 convicted sexual predators was living with the old man who refused to cooperate or ID himself.

[BDKJMU]

They were looking for 2 different men from that house. The US citizen refused ID and fingerprinting to ID himself. He was released once positive ID was proven. Neither one of the other 2 were found. Both sexual predators according to their records.

In that case f him.

[BDKJMU]

Well, I bet you don’t live with any illegal alien sexual predators, am I right?

No. And neither did the old Hmong man we’re talking about.

One of the 2 sexual predators who had that listed address was shown to be in jail. The other one wasn’t there at the time. Doesn’t mean he didn’t live there, or hadn’t very recently.

[UNI88]

No. And neither did the old Hmong man we’re talking about.

One of the 2 sexual predators who had that listed address was shown to be in jail. The other one wasn’t there at the time. Doesn’t mean he didn’t live there, or hadn’t very recently.

Confirmed to be at what address? Thao's? Circle Pines is a suburb about 15 miles north of St. Paul where Thao lived.

And confirmed by who?

As far as I've heard or read, there’s no confirmation from official or public records that either Lue Moua or Kongmeng Vang was truly residing at Thao’s address. Time for DHS to show some proof.

Moua’s incarceration seems to be a matter of state record suggests the information was publicly accessible. Is ICE incompetent or lazy and trying to cover it up by blaming their lack of knowledge on sanctuary policies?

And just for you BDK since this is near and dear to your heart ...

I find it interesting that many strong Second Amendment advocates — who rightly argue that constitutional rights must remain robust precisely because the government can be mistaken or abusive — are willing to narrow the Fourth Amendment when enforcement becomes inconvenient. The logic used to justify warrantless home entry (“they already had due process,” “efficiency matters,” “the Executive needs flexibility”) is the logic gun-control advocates reject when it comes to the Second Amendment. Either constitutional rights constrain the government before abuse happens, or they don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[BDKJMU]

The child's father took off running and left his son behind. The woman at the house would not take the child in. ICE took care of the child and kept him warm.

Yep.

[UNI88]

The child's father took off running and left his son behind. The woman at the house would not take the child in. ICE took care of the child and kept him warm.

Yep.

The family tells a different story and ICE is about as trustworthy as a $3 bill.

5-year-old asylum seeker detained as ICE expands enforcement in Minnesota

The 5-year-old was apprehended by immigration officials shortly after arriving home from preschool while his father was in their driveway, officials said.

"Another adult living in the home was outside and begged the agents to let them take care of the small child, but was refused," officials from Conejo Ramos' school said. "Instead, the agent took the child out of the still-running vehicle, led him to the door, and directed him to knock -- asking to be let in to see if anyone else was home -- essentially using a 5-year-old as bait."

Refusing to let a family member take care of the child and then using the child as bait - those are some solid family values on display.

Snatching children - ICE is a modern El Coco.

[BDKJMU]

Yep.

The lying illegal alien family tells a different story

The father abandoning the child, and then the mother refusing to open the door to take back her own child. What a bunch of POS parents. The kid should be taken away from them.

I agree.

[kalm]

They’re probably all packing too. (Whistles and horns)

250% of those people are all totally unhinged and radical violent leftist purple haired lunatics.

[kalm]

Yep.

The family tells a different story and ICE is about as trustworthy as a $3 bill.

5-year-old asylum seeker detained as ICE expands enforcement in Minnesota



Refusing to let a family member take care of the child and then using the child as bait - those are some solid family values on display.

Snatching children - ICE is a modern El Coco.

[UNI88]

[kalm]

This is something we shouldn’t even be close to considering. Yet here we are.

ICE are the instigators, disrupting the peace. Trump could call them off at any time and should considering the potential for further chaos and ICE’s approval ratings not to mention his own. But he enjoys this. Almost as much as Stephen Miller.

We ran high-level US civil war simulations. Minnesota is exactly how they start

Claire Finkelstein

This scenario closely mirrors one explored in an October 2024 tabletop exercise conducted by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL), which I direct, at the University of Pennsylvania. In that exercise, a president carried out a highly unpopular law-enforcement operation in Philadelphia and attempted to federalize the Pennsylvania’s national guard. When the governor resisted and the guard remained loyal to the state, the president deployed active-duty troops, resulting in an armed conflict between state and federal forces. The core danger we identified is now emerging: a violent confrontation between state and federal military forces in a major American city.

While our hypothetical scenario picked a different city and a slightly different sequence of events, the conclusions we reached about the possibility of green-on-green violence are directly applicable to the current situation. First, none of the participants – many of them senior former military and government officials – considered the scenario unrealistic, especially after the supreme court’s decision in Trump v United States, which granted the president criminal immunity for official acts.

Second, we concluded that in a fast-moving emergency of this magnitude, courts would probably be unable or unwilling to intervene in time, leaving state officials without meaningful judicial relief. State officials might file emergency motions to enjoin the use of federal troops, but judges would either fail to respond quickly enough or decline to rule on what they view as a “political question”, leaving the conflict unresolved. This is why Judge Menendez’s ruling is so critical: it may be the last opportunity a federal judge has to intervene before matters spiral completely out of control.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other