If you're running an Android phone open settings > Network & Internet > Internet > click on your network (e.g. Google Fi) > turn on 2G network protection (at the bottom).
Alternatively: Security & privacy > Advanced Protection > Device protection. That does other stuff too though
I'm not aware of a way to do this on iPhones...
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that many of these attacks work by performing 2G downgrading.
A quick search suggests Lockdown mode might do it, which is corroborated by their support docs. It also does a bunch of other things that will probably degrade most users' experience, for what it's worth. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120
> Wireless connectivity: Your device won't automatically join non-secure Wi-Fi networks and will disconnect from a non-secure Wi-Fi network when you turn on Lockdown Mode. 2G and 3G cellular support is turned off for iPhone and iPad.
(Instructions to enable it are on the linked page.)
But also WTF Apple... I appreciate that this mode exists but each of those things should be allowed to be toggled independently. People need more fine grained experience.
For things that I think will affect people more than the wireless connectivity
Messages: Most message attachment types are blocked, other than certain images, video, and audio. Some features, such as links and link previews, are unavailable.
FaceTime: Incoming FaceTime calls are blocked unless you have previously called that person or contact within the past 30 days. Features such as SharePlay and Live Photos are unavailable.
I swear... Apple really does not want to make privacy and security convenient for users. It's as if (...) they want to provide the tools to say they have the best security but then make the UX so poor that no one will end up using them (and then they can justify not developing more because "nobody uses them")
Is there a reason why Google and Apple wouldn't turn 2G downgrade off by default? Even the setting itself says "emergency calls over 2G are still allowed" so what is the reasoning behind leaving people exposed to this?
My recent experience when roaming was that calls only worked on 2G even though 4G and 5G were avaliable. After a call, phone would sometimes stay stuck on 2G which meant internet was not working. I had to disable 2G to force the phone to switch to 5G. But if I forgot to enable 2G again, calls didn't work. I checked this with multiple people and they all had the same issue.
This is totally speculative but I bet 2G is more reliable and has longer range. If your reception is bad, it may be necessary to downgrade to get any connection at all.
Just because the map shows you can get 5G (or 4G) does not mean you'll actually be able to use that network. It's tricky and telecom companies like to play these bullshit games. It's pretty similar to how they'll advertise "up to X MBPS" internet speeds but the average speed is far lower.
You'll actually have these experiences in congested cities. Ever go to a concert and realize you don't actually have cell service? That's because the tower is fully occupied. Unfortunately phones might not report this to you and might not report the downgrade. Making Android and Apple complacent...
For what it’s worth, the authors note that since this is installed on a phone, by the time CellGuard has detected a rogue base station, it’s too late anyway.
These spying devices often do permit network traffic to flow through, so if deployed widely these apps could be used to report on where large-scale messing with cellular communications is taking place. The only way to stop this technology is to turn off your phone completely (and opt out of any low-power "find my" networks built into Android and iOS, of course).
Hmm, says it works with the Pinephone and Pinephone Pro too, which are very portable, and are just generally devices many more would consider useful (I've thought about buying one at least, just for the open-source-ness of it)
Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. If you're operating a deportation agency in the style of roaming gangs of officers, you're probably not going to want to wait for the courts to dismiss your brute-force attempts to find illegals behind every door you break down.
The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. iPhones can enable it with lockdown mode (which also disables things like JIT and can make websites and app run slower), Google has added a toggle, and I think a few other manufacturers have it too, but you need support in the modem firmware to actually do anything with it.
Even then, 3G and 4G can also leak identifiers if you can fake being a base station. The identifiers are not as easy to obtain as on 2G, but there's a reason 5G added a masking feature to LTE. Especially combined with access to an SS7 capable line, you can pretty much replicate all of the 2G hacks with cellular tech at least up to 4G, maybe even newer than that.
Cellular firmware protection mechanisms seem to be targeting 2G exploitation so far. It'd be extremely unpractical (and probably impossible) to enforce some kind of "5G NR only" mode, but without such a mode you're going to be at risk of Stingray-like devices.
> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces?
They may not want to leave a paper trail.
“To obtain a [legal] wiretap order, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge” [1]. Given ICE has been arresting Americans, they probably aren’t bothering with cause. Legal intercepts also require “minimization procedures to limit the interception of conversations unrelated to the investigation,” which ICE may not want to do. And perhaps most importantly, “violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 are considered federal felonies,” with those convicted facing criminal penalties and being subject to civil liability.
I hate to make this analogy, but it’s akin to the Gestapo’s NBH obsession. They knew they were acting illegally, and didn’t want to leave the evidence that would convict them.
We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
>But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves.
It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
Likely cataloging IMSIs and IMEIs which would not constitute a wiretap. I know from experience these circles are concerned about roving protestors and agitators.
These sort of metrics can also be used with commercially available RTB data if and when cases go to court. I'm about 90% certain they ARE NOT intercepting phone calls and I'm 80% certain they're not intercepting sms
Trump's bill allocated 170 billion dollars to ICE. That figure is greater than annual defense spending of every country in the world other than US and China. I believe it's spread over four years, so amortized over that time period it would have more budget than all but 12 countries in the world.
> the relationship between the agency and the company predates the Trump administration
IMSI catchers/stingrays have been common practice in local law enforcement for decades, haven't they? How is this different?
> Some cell-site simulators can also intercept regular calls, text messages, and internet traffic.
In what decade was this true, other than text messages? I don't think it is very easy even for an IMSI catcher/stingray to eavesdrop on calls over LTE, for example.
It's different because ICE is a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US. They don't get warrants, engage in racial profiling, disappeared 2/3rds of the people sent to some of their facilities, arrest citizens, assault peaceful protesters, etc.
They're doing this over the objection of state and local authorities, and despite the fact that their actions have been repeatedly ruled illegal by the courts.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
"due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC". I think most people would be surprised how little process is owed to someone who is not legally present in the United States and how few opportunities there are for appeal.
These people are shuffled around the country without their lawyers being informed and are “lost” in the system for long stretches of time without representation.
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
I always forget websters definition of punishment is “violent masked unidentified government sanctioned gangs roaming the streets and violently apprehending people”
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
> "due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC".
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
Obama’s deportation numbers were juiced compared to post-2015 numbers because there was a change in the definition of that term.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
> Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
> as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal
In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition.
What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).
Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand.
Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
> since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket
My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.
> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law
I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation.
By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society.
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law.
Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
> the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law
The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].
That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.
If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King.
SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
There are supposed to be checks on the power of the supreme court through both the ability to impeach justices and the ability to pass constitutional amendments. Those checks are not working as they are supposed to for many reasons.
Immigration has always come under the plenary powers of The Congress and is not subject to judicial review. This plenary power doctrine has weakened over the centuries but it still holds.
Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds.
The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law.
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.
Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
> Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
Without probable cause? The Fourth Amendment.
> shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence
I see that you are comfortable with a presumption of guilt so long as the burden of proof of actual innocence isn’t too rigorous, but that’s exactly backwards.
As an American I don't share your views at all. If you don't learn to engage in rational discussion over basic issues, and instead choose to have emotional hyperbolic outbursts, you probably won't ever get what you want.
Might help if you specify which views you don't share? The fact that slavery etc was legal or that they were wrong or that citizens should oppose them?
Well it might be emotional if you're one of these people about to be sent to South Sudan
It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
People are reduced to the point of keeping airtags on them so loved ones and their lawyers can find them because the administration wants to hide them away.
>It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
What does the fact that ICE is doing it to catch illegal matter? Because as far as I'm concerned ICE has no bearing on this. It's wrong no matter who does it or what their goals are.
Being an illegal is barely a crime. Whoops, you overstayed your visa, big fucking deal. If we are going to take issue with this sort of enforcement behavior used on such minor infractions then we need to do so on principal, because not giving a shit when it was used on drug dealers and terrorists and tax evaders and everything else that's "bad" is how we fucking got here.
> It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
That's not happening
> Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
Illegal immigrants are deported as quickly as the law allows in every country all around the world. Sometimes they are turned around at the airport before ever entering. Should we give all of them court dates and set them loose in the country?
Really don't understand the hyper-emotional hyperbole around this topic. Seems very astroturfed. If its not, a lot of people have lost their ability to be rational as they discuss complex issues.
I'm not trying to be combative here; genuinely would like to see things from "the other side" here and have a rational discussion. Using some specifics, I see the following as wrong:
1. Doing mass detentions and checking papers. Of course not literally through the entirety of a city, but do you agree this happens in mass at say home depot parking lots, construction sites etc, where ICE doesn't know who exactly is here illegally, so they detain everyone and check. This vs having a specific individual in mind and going to arrest that person.
2. Sending people to countries they have no ties to. CECOT for instance, where they're imprisoned indefinitely without a specific charge.
Do you agree these have happened? If so do you think they're ok?
A Federal government agency is "a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US?" What?
"I think they're being employed in a shitty and potentially illegal manner outside their remit" is a perfectly arguable take that doesn't require tinfoil-hattery.
You might not like the tone, but I don't see what makes the words false. "Paramilitary" describes a non-military group behaving similarly to a military group, and we're talking about armed masked men sweeping homes, taking prisoners, and engaging in violent conflicts. "Operating illegally" means that federal, state, or local laws have been broken, and that seems to be the case, e.g. Gonzalez v. ICE.
It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law.
California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders.
I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws.
You can't ignore federal laws or declare "safe-zones" from it. Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats...again.
> I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws
Preëmption is about conflicts of laws [1]. You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preëmpt California law.
> Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats
I live in a red state. We started to see ICE enforcement and then our Senators told them to fuck off.
To the extent we have a safe zone from immigration enforcement, it's in Republican economic strongholds [2].
>You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preempt California law.
Legally, it's up for debate on how much power localities can regulate Federal Law Enforcement operations. Federal Government takes the view that it's restrictions on operations by states is almost zero. There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling.
States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
> There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling
What? States have been fighting over this since the 19th century [1].
> States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
Source for states being "loath to attempt to regulate federal law enforcment"?
We literally have multiple states--led by California--passing laws which "attempt to regulate" just that. (Exhibit A: the comment you responded to.)
Sure, States have been fighting over this since US Government was formed, however, I'm some ruling from 1812 does not matter.
If you look at recent legal history, Federal Government has won in every case where Federal Law Enforcement was acting as Federal Law Enforcement Officers.
My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
> If you look at recent legal history, Federal Government has won in every case where Federal Law Enforcement was acting as Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Not disputing, but do you have sources?
> My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
This is fair. I think one of the smartest things a Democrat Governor could do right now is start arresting federal agents who are breaking state laws, e.g. around where they can be and how they must identify themselves.
As you say, it will probably be met sceptically by the courts, and almost certainly so by SCOTUS. But it will gum up the works and turn that person into a hero. If Trump fucks up and arrests them, their political ascendancy is assured.
>Decades later, in 1992, another high-profile prosecution of a federal official involved the siege of anti-government separatist Randall Weaver’s cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho.[33] Amid a controversial series of events, an FBI sniper accidentally killed Weaver’s unarmed wife, Vicki Weaver.[34] The U.S. Attorney General decided not to prosecute the sniper under federal law, but Idaho prosecutors charged him with involuntary manslaughter under state law.[35] After some uncertainty in prior court decisions, a split federal appeals court concluded that the Idaho case could tentatively go ahead because disputed facts left it unclear whether the sniper “acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out [his] duties.”[36] A week after that decision, however, the newly elected county prosecutor in Idaho chose to drop the charges.[37]
And in a case from 2006, Wyoming prosecutors charged federal wildlife officers with trespass and littering for entering private land while collaring wolves as part of a federal monitoring program.[38] The Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers were immune from prosecution because they had an “objectively reasonable and well-founded” belief that they were on public land when conducting the collaring.[39] The court also concluded that the prosecution “was not a bona fide effort to punish a violation of Wyoming trespass law, which requires knowledge on the part of a trespasser, but rather an attempt to hinder a locally unpopular federal program.”[40]
Other recent high-profile cases include a Virginia prosecution of U.S. Park Police officers who shot and killed a man in 2017,[41] a Boston municipal court judge finding a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in contempt of court and referring the matter to the district attorney for prosecution after the agent detained a man in the middle of a municipal court trial,[42] and an Oregon prosecution of a Drug Enforcement Administration officer who hit and killed a cyclist in 2023 while pursuing a suspected fentanyl trafficker.[43] The first two cases were dismissed,[44] and the Oregon case is still pending in a federal appeals court.[45]
I don't know why this was flagged. It may be wrong, but I think it worth discussing to correct.
Not all of Federal law supersedes state law. The Tenth Amendment clarifies:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If it's not given to the federal government to regulate, the federal government can't regulate it.
Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration.
Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racists.
If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t. All while blowing the military budget of Saudi Arabia [1][2] to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much.
It was an extremely weak mandate, and in normal times (e.g., assuming the concept of limited government), a weak mandate would be a mandate to act with restraint. Thus a "mandate" doesn't justify what's happening.
The Republicans abandoned the economic debate, and shifted focus to social issues. This is what caught the Democrats, including myself, off guard. Rather than stealing our jobs, the immigrants were accused of stealing our cats.
Framing it as an economic issue in hindsight seems like a polite way of "steelmanning" the voting base, but I'm not sure it's really justifiable.
> much easier for Obama to do it because there were not throngs of protesters trying to stop his ICE officers
Yes there were [1][2]. New York City Council members were arrested [3].
Obama's ICE was simply more focussed on detaining and deterring illegal immigrants because immigration was a political liability for him. For Trump, efficiacy isn't as important as messaging.
I don't have the links handy, but ISTR that both Obama and Biden counted turning folks away at the border as equivalent to a deportation. That juices the deportation metrics without being nearly so disruptive.
> ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws
“From January to June, the average number of detainees per day in ICE custody rose 43 percent, to more than 57,000. But since July, when the [OBBA] funding was approved, the detainee population has increased only about 5 percent, to roughly 60,000, the latest statistics show.
The stream of social-media clips showing masked federal agents kicking down doors, raiding Home Depot parking lots, and pulling people from their car have kept up the appearance of an ever-expanding campaign. ICE’s own data show that the agency’s buildup stalled over the summer” [1].
Meanwhile, with first-year deportations around 400,000 [2], they stand to match what Obama did in 2012 [3], despite spending $40 to 70bn, or 10 to 15x, more [4][5].
Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, ICE is involved in domestic policing, partisan intimidation and the illegal detention of American citizens.
> Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over
“U.S. Border Patrol agents recorded nearly 238,000 apprehensions of migrants crossing the southern border illegally in fiscal year 2025” [1]. For 2012 to 2015, the chart shows about 360k, 420k, 480k and 330k, respectively.
So ICE is spending $330 to 580 thousand dollars per additional Southwest border encounter in 2025 versus 2012. ($250 to 440 thousand if we average Obama’s second-term numbers.)
These numbers 10x even San Francisco’s circa 2016 homeless-industrial profligacy [2]. Unless ICE is a ball of wormy corruption, they’re clearly not focused on immigration enforcement.
If it is, it's being pursued corruptly and incompetently.
From the top of the thread, ICE is spending boatloads more money to deport just about as many people as Obama did with a tenth of the budget [1]. Cross-border encounters are within 100,000, so the difference is not explained by recividism.
How is what is supposed to be "law enforcement" repelling from helicopters to ziptie children and running over protesters with armored personnel carriers and receiving satellite and cellphone intelligence and coordinating with that national guard ....not "paramilitary"
They bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls. Sure they have the occasional off-the-shelf imsi catcher. "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer.
> bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls
ICE ran a 5AM motorcade through my mountain town, compete with helicopter escort. We’re in a red state, though, and border a red farm state, so I understand they were actually told to knock it off.
> "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer
The only part of a definition [1] that ICE might fail is in whether they’re professionally designated to act as a secret police. If by wannabe you’re saying ICE intends to be and act like a paramilitary, you’ve effectively conceded the point.
I'm unfamiliar with the business of finding illegal immigrants. Isn't the idea of detaining them that you're worried they might flee if they know they're going to be deported? If so isn't it counterproductive for ICE to make noise (announcing themselves basically) if doing a 5am raid for farm workers? You'd think showing up at the field in a separate bus and spreading out would work best.
> "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct."
(I never said what you’re falsely quoting.)
An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force.
TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game.
> Gov plates or personal
vehicles?
Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.)
I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries.
The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police.
> What's the acceptable notation for paraphrasing?
No clue :P. But I think quotation marks should be saved for actual quotations, particularly in a threaded context. (Air quotes absolutely muddy the waters.)
It doesn't require any tinfoil-hattery though because everything they're doing is very public. Like you look at their actions Chicago [1] and I think it's impossible to NOT think they're an illegal paramilitary group. They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. They've violated people's constitutional rights multiple times over.
I'm sorry, why does the proportion matter? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Are you saying you, personally, would be OK with being rounded up and arrested as long as they got X illegal immigrants along the way?
Presumption of innocence applies to your trial, not to being apprehended. E.g. the state has to prove that you are guilty.
If I'm a US citizen and I get swept up in an immigration raid, my lawyer calls my wife who brings my US passport and I'm released. A pain in the ass, but not a violation of my civil rights. Now if I get beat up by ICE, or they file a false claim for resisting, then sure, we've got grounds for a case that my rights were violated. But constitutional rights are not a blanket "I can never be arrested if I think I'm innocent"
You cannot be arrested without probable cause. Being arrested in a dragnet immigration raid is just a crystal clear fourth amendment violation. Simple as that.
They simply got a warrant retroactively after they already did it. Released without charge, but they just invented some paperwork afterwards that an anonymous dog had alerted (judge signed it about 12 hours after I was 'not' arrested). No mention on the PC paperwork who the dog was or who the handler was, as far as I know they didn't exist.
So yeah that's nice in theory but in practice they can simply jail you without recording an arrest, then retroactively invent PC. When I ran a federal background check it came up with no arrests, despite the fact I was imprisoned.
The Supreme Court was clear that if your skin is not white, this is probable cause. Also location is important (like being at a car wash) or speaking with an accent.
It matters because the wording of the OP implies they're targeting citizens, but in reality they're getting caught in the dragnet. That's regrettable, but it's unclear how it's worse than any other sort of law enforcement, which also have false positives. According to wikipedia the felony conviction rate in the US is only 68%, which implies for every 100 "criminals" that are arrested, there are 32 "innocent" people. That's probably far worse than ICE's rate of catching citizens, so does that mean we can call the entire US law enforcement apparatus a "paramilitary force"? One final thing to note, Canada's conviction rate is even lower at 62%, and China's is even higher at 99.975%.
Are they arresting citizens whose behavior does not warrant arrest? I have read about several arrests, but the citizens were all interfering with lawful detentions that ICE was carrying out.
If they act as MITM, they can intercept cell phone calls.
Stingrays are somewhat it common practice. But they force every device to attach to look for the one they want. And its reasonable to feel queasy about that for any number of reasons.
If you're running an Android phone open settings > Network & Internet > Internet > click on your network (e.g. Google Fi) > turn on 2G network protection (at the bottom).
Alternatively: Security & privacy > Advanced Protection > Device protection. That does other stuff too though
I'm not aware of a way to do this on iPhones...
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that many of these attacks work by performing 2G downgrading.
> a way to do this on iPhones
A quick search suggests Lockdown mode might do it, which is corroborated by their support docs. It also does a bunch of other things that will probably degrade most users' experience, for what it's worth. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120
> Wireless connectivity: Your device won't automatically join non-secure Wi-Fi networks and will disconnect from a non-secure Wi-Fi network when you turn on Lockdown Mode. 2G and 3G cellular support is turned off for iPhone and iPad.
(Instructions to enable it are on the linked page.)
Thanks!
But also WTF Apple... I appreciate that this mode exists but each of those things should be allowed to be toggled independently. People need more fine grained experience.
For things that I think will affect people more than the wireless connectivity
I swear... Apple really does not want to make privacy and security convenient for users. It's as if (...) they want to provide the tools to say they have the best security but then make the UX so poor that no one will end up using them (and then they can justify not developing more because "nobody uses them")Is there a reason why Google and Apple wouldn't turn 2G downgrade off by default? Even the setting itself says "emergency calls over 2G are still allowed" so what is the reasoning behind leaving people exposed to this?
My recent experience when roaming was that calls only worked on 2G even though 4G and 5G were avaliable. After a call, phone would sometimes stay stuck on 2G which meant internet was not working. I had to disable 2G to force the phone to switch to 5G. But if I forgot to enable 2G again, calls didn't work. I checked this with multiple people and they all had the same issue.
This is totally speculative but I bet 2G is more reliable and has longer range. If your reception is bad, it may be necessary to downgrade to get any connection at all.
Likely due to areas that still have only 2g coverage. Still a lot of that in rural usa
What areas are those? From some quick research, the only carrier left that provides 2G coverage is T-Mobile but they're phasing that out this year.
Just because the map shows you can get 5G (or 4G) does not mean you'll actually be able to use that network. It's tricky and telecom companies like to play these bullshit games. It's pretty similar to how they'll advertise "up to X MBPS" internet speeds but the average speed is far lower.
You'll actually have these experiences in congested cities. Ever go to a concert and realize you don't actually have cell service? That's because the tower is fully occupied. Unfortunately phones might not report this to you and might not report the downgrade. Making Android and Apple complacent...
anytime these type of stories come up, its helpful for someone to post about ieee's rayhunter opensource project.
https://github.com/EFForg/rayhunter
which pairs nicely with a
https://www.amazon.com/Orbic-Verizon-Hotspot-Connect-Enabled...
Another nice tool is CellGuard
https://cellguard.seemoo.de/
It works on iOS devices without any extra hardware, even on non jailbroken devices, by analyzing baseband debug logs exported by the OS.
For what it’s worth, the authors note that since this is installed on a phone, by the time CellGuard has detected a rogue base station, it’s too late anyway.
These spying devices often do permit network traffic to flow through, so if deployed widely these apps could be used to report on where large-scale messing with cellular communications is taking place. The only way to stop this technology is to turn off your phone completely (and opt out of any low-power "find my" networks built into Android and iOS, of course).
faraday pouch for added peace of mind.
Hmm, says it works with the Pinephone and Pinephone Pro too, which are very portable, and are just generally devices many more would consider useful (I've thought about buying one at least, just for the open-source-ness of it)
Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces?
They will get all the data. Not only voice, data and SMS/RCS.
All modern smartphones (like Pixels) allow you to switch off 2G. They even warn if you want to activate it.
Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. If you're operating a deportation agency in the style of roaming gangs of officers, you're probably not going to want to wait for the courts to dismiss your brute-force attempts to find illegals behind every door you break down.
The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. iPhones can enable it with lockdown mode (which also disables things like JIT and can make websites and app run slower), Google has added a toggle, and I think a few other manufacturers have it too, but you need support in the modem firmware to actually do anything with it.
Even then, 3G and 4G can also leak identifiers if you can fake being a base station. The identifiers are not as easy to obtain as on 2G, but there's a reason 5G added a masking feature to LTE. Especially combined with access to an SS7 capable line, you can pretty much replicate all of the 2G hacks with cellular tech at least up to 4G, maybe even newer than that.
Cellular firmware protection mechanisms seem to be targeting 2G exploitation so far. It'd be extremely unpractical (and probably impossible) to enforce some kind of "5G NR only" mode, but without such a mode you're going to be at risk of Stingray-like devices.
> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces?
Probably for the same reason they're wearing masks
> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces?
They may not want to leave a paper trail.
“To obtain a [legal] wiretap order, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge” [1]. Given ICE has been arresting Americans, they probably aren’t bothering with cause. Legal intercepts also require “minimization procedures to limit the interception of conversations unrelated to the investigation,” which ICE may not want to do. And perhaps most importantly, “violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 are considered federal felonies,” with those convicted facing criminal penalties and being subject to civil liability.
I hate to make this analogy, but it’s akin to the Gestapo’s NBH obsession. They knew they were acting illegally, and didn’t want to leave the evidence that would convict them.
[1] https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-...
But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
Are you familiar with the concept of parallel construction?
If evidence of the wiretap never needs to be entered into the official record, did it really exist in the first place?
>But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves.
It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
Of course it is. But good luck proving how they got the information.
Assuming there is even a venue where evidence would be provided for the purpose of being looked at
> They may not want to leave a paper trail.
This makes sense, considering the regime is hiring Jan 6th insurrectionists like Jared Wise. Legality has gone out the window.
Another possibility not mentioned here is simply demonstrating that they can get away with not doing so.
Who says they aren't?
Likely cataloging IMSIs and IMEIs which would not constitute a wiretap. I know from experience these circles are concerned about roving protestors and agitators.
These sort of metrics can also be used with commercially available RTB data if and when cases go to court. I'm about 90% certain they ARE NOT intercepting phone calls and I'm 80% certain they're not intercepting sms
yes, ICE strike me as deeply and sincerely concerned about both agitators and bringing robust cases to courts :)
Why wouldn't they? There's been people complaining about fed cops having these tools and techniques for over a decade now.
I hear ICE's budget has grown to an absurd amount and they can operate through the shutdown.
Trump's bill allocated 170 billion dollars to ICE. That figure is greater than annual defense spending of every country in the world other than US and China. I believe it's spread over four years, so amortized over that time period it would have more budget than all but 12 countries in the world.
1984
> the relationship between the agency and the company predates the Trump administration
IMSI catchers/stingrays have been common practice in local law enforcement for decades, haven't they? How is this different?
> Some cell-site simulators can also intercept regular calls, text messages, and internet traffic.
In what decade was this true, other than text messages? I don't think it is very easy even for an IMSI catcher/stingray to eavesdrop on calls over LTE, for example.
It's different because ICE is a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US. They don't get warrants, engage in racial profiling, disappeared 2/3rds of the people sent to some of their facilities, arrest citizens, assault peaceful protesters, etc.
They're doing this over the objection of state and local authorities, and despite the fact that their actions have been repeatedly ruled illegal by the courts.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
"due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC". I think most people would be surprised how little process is owed to someone who is not legally present in the United States and how few opportunities there are for appeal.
These people are shuffled around the country without their lawyers being informed and are “lost” in the system for long stretches of time without representation.
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
> The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
More relevant to ICE, is the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from doing that.
Being deported isn't legally deprivation of "life, liberty, or property."
Deportation is not a punishment and is entirely avoidable in 99% of cases: don't overstay or enter illegally.
I always forget websters definition of punishment is “violent masked unidentified government sanctioned gangs roaming the streets and violently apprehending people”
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
How about children being ziptied in their homes and roughed up in the middle of the night?
Oops a citizen, don’t look so brown next time. Catch and release.
> "due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC".
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
Little... but not none.
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
What's moral vs what's legal aren't always the same thing. Especially in times like this, they get very quickly divergent.
To the parent poster's point, the obligation of the citizen in a democracy (at least in theory) is to try to align those.
Agreed.
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
Obama’s deportation numbers were juiced compared to post-2015 numbers because there was a change in the definition of that term.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
> Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
> An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping.
Okay, but dragging citizens out of their homes without a warrant (https://www.commondreams.org/news/ice-raid-chicago-apartment) sure is.
> as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal
In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition.
What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
How about denying the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens to be secure in their homes in the recent Chicago apartment raid? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil
How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
> What actions are you referring to
The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand.
Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
> since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket
My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.
> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law
I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
Just because SCOTUS says something doesn't make it just. Especially this court.
The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation.
By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society.
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law.
Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
> the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law
The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].
That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King.
SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
There are supposed to be checks on the power of the supreme court through both the ability to impeach justices and the ability to pass constitutional amendments. Those checks are not working as they are supposed to for many reasons.
Immigration has always come under the plenary powers of The Congress and is not subject to judicial review. This plenary power doctrine has weakened over the centuries but it still holds.
https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law.
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
> The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants.
Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
> as a general rule
To rudely open a dictionary:
"As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases.
Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES.
The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.
ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.
I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal...
A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
So call what they're doing 'wrong' not 'illegal'. The remedies for those two things are very different.
Well also a lot of what they're doing to enforce laws without warrants, arresting citizens without cause, lack of due process, etc is illegal.
But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
> Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
Without probable cause? The Fourth Amendment.
> shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence
I see that you are comfortable with a presumption of guilt so long as the burden of proof of actual innocence isn’t too rigorous, but that’s exactly backwards.
I should have said "without cause" (now edited). Brown folks are detained randomly because they don't have their papers on them and "look Mexican".
due process
As an American I don't share your views at all. If you don't learn to engage in rational discussion over basic issues, and instead choose to have emotional hyperbolic outbursts, you probably won't ever get what you want.
Might help if you specify which views you don't share? The fact that slavery etc was legal or that they were wrong or that citizens should oppose them?
Well it might be emotional if you're one of these people about to be sent to South Sudan
It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
People are reduced to the point of keeping airtags on them so loved ones and their lawyers can find them because the administration wants to hide them away.
>It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
What does the fact that ICE is doing it to catch illegal matter? Because as far as I'm concerned ICE has no bearing on this. It's wrong no matter who does it or what their goals are.
Being an illegal is barely a crime. Whoops, you overstayed your visa, big fucking deal. If we are going to take issue with this sort of enforcement behavior used on such minor infractions then we need to do so on principal, because not giving a shit when it was used on drug dealers and terrorists and tax evaders and everything else that's "bad" is how we fucking got here.
ICE is just particularly egregious example. But a lot of Federal agents on the ground are participating in Midway Blitz.
You're missing the point. No agency should be behaving this way over a paperwork crime.
It's not even a crime. It's an administrative infraction.
> It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
That's not happening
> Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
Illegal immigrants are deported as quickly as the law allows in every country all around the world. Sometimes they are turned around at the airport before ever entering. Should we give all of them court dates and set them loose in the country?
Really don't understand the hyper-emotional hyperbole around this topic. Seems very astroturfed. If its not, a lot of people have lost their ability to be rational as they discuss complex issues.
> Really don't understand the hyper-emotional hyperbole around this topic.
If you can’t understand the emotion of being sent to a random country and being separated from your family, I can’t help you.
I'm not trying to be combative here; genuinely would like to see things from "the other side" here and have a rational discussion. Using some specifics, I see the following as wrong:
1. Doing mass detentions and checking papers. Of course not literally through the entirety of a city, but do you agree this happens in mass at say home depot parking lots, construction sites etc, where ICE doesn't know who exactly is here illegally, so they detain everyone and check. This vs having a specific individual in mind and going to arrest that person.
2. Sending people to countries they have no ties to. CECOT for instance, where they're imprisoned indefinitely without a specific charge.
Do you agree these have happened? If so do you think they're ok?
Nothing more rational than dismissing other viewpoints as astroturfing
> That's not happening
Yes it is [1].
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
A Federal government agency is "a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US?" What?
"I think they're being employed in a shitty and potentially illegal manner outside their remit" is a perfectly arguable take that doesn't require tinfoil-hattery.
You might not like the tone, but I don't see what makes the words false. "Paramilitary" describes a non-military group behaving similarly to a military group, and we're talking about armed masked men sweeping homes, taking prisoners, and engaging in violent conflicts. "Operating illegally" means that federal, state, or local laws have been broken, and that seems to be the case, e.g. Gonzalez v. ICE.
Federal law supersedes state law.
ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
> Federal law supersedes state law
It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law.
California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws.
You can't ignore federal laws or declare "safe-zones" from it. Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats...again.
> I'd imagine the California arrest restriction at it's courts is not constitutional as it conflicts with enforcement of existing federal immigration laws
Preëmption is about conflicts of laws [1]. You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preëmpt California law.
> Even if it's for cheap labor, Democrats
I live in a red state. We started to see ICE enforcement and then our Senators told them to fuck off.
To the extent we have a safe zone from immigration enforcement, it's in Republican economic strongholds [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-walks-back-limits-raids...
>You’d need statute giving ICE the power to enforce its will in state courthouses to preempt California law.
Legally, it's up for debate on how much power localities can regulate Federal Law Enforcement operations. Federal Government takes the view that it's restrictions on operations by states is almost zero. There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling.
States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
> There is 9th Circuit Ruling that says states can if "a federal officer [must do] no more than is necessary and proper in the performance of his duty" but that's pretty untested ruling
What? States have been fighting over this since the 19th century [1].
> States are loath to attempt to regulate Federal Law Enforcement by running it up the courts since their worry is it hits SCOTUS and they come back with "States have no power, LOLZ"
Source for states being "loath to attempt to regulate federal law enforcment"?
We literally have multiple states--led by California--passing laws which "attempt to regulate" just that. (Exhibit A: the comment you responded to.)
[1] https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/2025/explainer-...
Sure, States have been fighting over this since US Government was formed, however, I'm some ruling from 1812 does not matter.
If you look at recent legal history, Federal Government has won in every case where Federal Law Enforcement was acting as Federal Law Enforcement Officers.
My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
> If you look at recent legal history, Federal Government has won in every case where Federal Law Enforcement was acting as Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Not disputing, but do you have sources?
> My point is California has passed laws attempting to regulate but as of yet, has not attempted to enforce their laws at all. So are they really attempting or just doing performance art with laws?
This is fair. I think one of the smartest things a Democrat Governor could do right now is start arresting federal agents who are breaking state laws, e.g. around where they can be and how they must identify themselves.
As you say, it will probably be met sceptically by the courts, and almost certainly so by SCOTUS. But it will gum up the works and turn that person into a hero. If Trump fucks up and arrests them, their political ascendancy is assured.
From your source:
>Decades later, in 1992, another high-profile prosecution of a federal official involved the siege of anti-government separatist Randall Weaver’s cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho.[33] Amid a controversial series of events, an FBI sniper accidentally killed Weaver’s unarmed wife, Vicki Weaver.[34] The U.S. Attorney General decided not to prosecute the sniper under federal law, but Idaho prosecutors charged him with involuntary manslaughter under state law.[35] After some uncertainty in prior court decisions, a split federal appeals court concluded that the Idaho case could tentatively go ahead because disputed facts left it unclear whether the sniper “acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out [his] duties.”[36] A week after that decision, however, the newly elected county prosecutor in Idaho chose to drop the charges.[37]
And in a case from 2006, Wyoming prosecutors charged federal wildlife officers with trespass and littering for entering private land while collaring wolves as part of a federal monitoring program.[38] The Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers were immune from prosecution because they had an “objectively reasonable and well-founded” belief that they were on public land when conducting the collaring.[39] The court also concluded that the prosecution “was not a bona fide effort to punish a violation of Wyoming trespass law, which requires knowledge on the part of a trespasser, but rather an attempt to hinder a locally unpopular federal program.”[40]
Other recent high-profile cases include a Virginia prosecution of U.S. Park Police officers who shot and killed a man in 2017,[41] a Boston municipal court judge finding a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in contempt of court and referring the matter to the district attorney for prosecution after the agent detained a man in the middle of a municipal court trial,[42] and an Oregon prosecution of a Drug Enforcement Administration officer who hit and killed a cyclist in 2023 while pursuing a suspected fentanyl trafficker.[43] The first two cases were dismissed,[44] and the Oregon case is still pending in a federal appeals court.[45]
I don't know why this was flagged. It may be wrong, but I think it worth discussing to correct.
Not all of Federal law supersedes state law. The Tenth Amendment clarifies:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If it's not given to the federal government to regulate, the federal government can't regulate it.
It hasn't been flagged.
Do you agree enforcing immigration laws in this way is good and/or important? If so, can I ask why? What is our end goal?
> can I ask why?
Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration.
Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racists.
If ICE were simply enforcing the law, I don’t think there would be a national outcry. The problem is they aren’t. All while blowing the military budget of Saudi Arabia [1][2] to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much.
[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/saudi-arabia-increases-d...
[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...
It was an extremely weak mandate, and in normal times (e.g., assuming the concept of limited government), a weak mandate would be a mandate to act with restraint. Thus a "mandate" doesn't justify what's happening.
The Republicans abandoned the economic debate, and shifted focus to social issues. This is what caught the Democrats, including myself, off guard. Rather than stealing our jobs, the immigrants were accused of stealing our cats.
Framing it as an economic issue in hindsight seems like a polite way of "steelmanning" the voting base, but I'm not sure it's really justifiable.
> to accomplish what Obama did with a tenth as much
It was much easier for Obama to do it because there were not throngs of protesters trying to stop his ICE officers from doing their job.
> much easier for Obama to do it because there were not throngs of protesters trying to stop his ICE officers
Yes there were [1][2]. New York City Council members were arrested [3].
Obama's ICE was simply more focussed on detaining and deterring illegal immigrants because immigration was a political liability for him. For Trump, efficiacy isn't as important as messaging.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/barack-obama-immigration-raids-pro...
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3793700
[3] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/protest-arrests/211895...
Assumed political liability.
What's the cause and what's the effect? Less protests because ICE under Obama wasn't taking such a heavy handed and legally gray approach perhaps?
I don't have the links handy, but ISTR that both Obama and Biden counted turning folks away at the border as equivalent to a deportation. That juices the deportation metrics without being nearly so disruptive.
> ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws
“From January to June, the average number of detainees per day in ICE custody rose 43 percent, to more than 57,000. But since July, when the [OBBA] funding was approved, the detainee population has increased only about 5 percent, to roughly 60,000, the latest statistics show.
The stream of social-media clips showing masked federal agents kicking down doors, raiding Home Depot parking lots, and pulling people from their car have kept up the appearance of an ever-expanding campaign. ICE’s own data show that the agency’s buildup stalled over the summer” [1].
Meanwhile, with first-year deportations around 400,000 [2], they stand to match what Obama did in 2012 [3], despite spending $40 to 70bn, or 10 to 15x, more [4][5].
Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, ICE is involved in domestic policing, partisan intimidation and the illegal detention of American citizens.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/ice-imm...
[2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
[3] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG...
[4] https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 $5.8bn, FY2012, $8.2bn CPI adjusted to ‘25
[5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b... $45 to 75 billion under OBBBA
Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over.
Easy to inflate deportations when you catch the same fish and the river is flowing.
Much slower when you dam off the river and have to dig the remaining catfish out of the mud.
> Difference between deportations under Obama vs Trump is they aren't coming right back over
“U.S. Border Patrol agents recorded nearly 238,000 apprehensions of migrants crossing the southern border illegally in fiscal year 2025” [1]. For 2012 to 2015, the chart shows about 360k, 420k, 480k and 330k, respectively.
So ICE is spending $330 to 580 thousand dollars per additional Southwest border encounter in 2025 versus 2012. ($250 to 440 thousand if we average Obama’s second-term numbers.)
These numbers 10x even San Francisco’s circa 2016 homeless-industrial profligacy [2]. Unless ICE is a ball of wormy corruption, they’re clearly not focused on immigration enforcement.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/10/icymi-illegal-cr...
[2] https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
Interior enforcement is the focus currently.
Crossings are lower overall due to securing of the border.
> Interior enforcement is the focus currently
If it is, it's being pursued corruptly and incompetently.
From the top of the thread, ICE is spending boatloads more money to deport just about as many people as Obama did with a tenth of the budget [1]. Cross-border encounters are within 100,000, so the difference is not explained by recividism.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506994
They're enforcing the law in profoundly illegal ways.
How is what is supposed to be "law enforcement" repelling from helicopters to ziptie children and running over protesters with armored personnel carriers and receiving satellite and cellphone intelligence and coordinating with that national guard ....not "paramilitary"
They bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls. Sure they have the occasional off-the-shelf imsi catcher. "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer.
> bring their own ill-fitting gear and jump out of U-hauls
ICE ran a 5AM motorcade through my mountain town, compete with helicopter escort. We’re in a red state, though, and border a red farm state, so I understand they were actually told to knock it off.
> "Wannabe paramilitary", final offer
The only part of a definition [1] that ICE might fail is in whether they’re professionally designated to act as a secret police. If by wannabe you’re saying ICE intends to be and act like a paramilitary, you’ve effectively conceded the point.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
I'm unfamiliar with the business of finding illegal immigrants. Isn't the idea of detaining them that you're worried they might flee if they know they're going to be deported? If so isn't it counterproductive for ICE to make noise (announcing themselves basically) if doing a 5am raid for farm workers? You'd think showing up at the field in a separate bus and spreading out would work best.
The cruelty is the point. They want to hurt people.
Lol what? "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct."
Genuine curiosity, what did the motorcade look like? Gov plates or personal vehicles? Was the helicopter ICE or local police keeping an eye on things?
> "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct."
(I never said what you’re falsely quoting.)
An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force.
TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game.
> Gov plates or personal vehicles?
Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.)
I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries.
The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police.
> local police keeping an eye on things?
Not state or local.
> Falsely quoting
What's the acceptable notation for paraphrasing? I typically use > for quotes.
Agreed, most of this is an unnecessary argument over terminology when I was simply calling them Temu Stasi.
We'll see about the secret police thing, for now they seem to be just about getting their deportation bounties.
> What's the acceptable notation for paraphrasing?
No clue :P. But I think quotation marks should be saved for actual quotations, particularly in a threaded context. (Air quotes absolutely muddy the waters.)
It doesn't require any tinfoil-hattery though because everything they're doing is very public. Like you look at their actions Chicago [1] and I think it's impossible to NOT think they're an illegal paramilitary group. They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants. They've violated people's constitutional rights multiple times over.
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
>They're rounding up, detaining and arresting US citizens and destroying their property under the guise of sweeping illegal immigrants.
What's the proportion of US citizens arrested compared to actual illegal immigrants?
I'm sorry, why does the proportion matter? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Are you saying you, personally, would be OK with being rounded up and arrested as long as they got X illegal immigrants along the way?
Presumption of innocence applies to your trial, not to being apprehended. E.g. the state has to prove that you are guilty.
If I'm a US citizen and I get swept up in an immigration raid, my lawyer calls my wife who brings my US passport and I'm released. A pain in the ass, but not a violation of my civil rights. Now if I get beat up by ICE, or they file a false claim for resisting, then sure, we've got grounds for a case that my rights were violated. But constitutional rights are not a blanket "I can never be arrested if I think I'm innocent"
You cannot be arrested without probable cause. Being arrested in a dragnet immigration raid is just a crystal clear fourth amendment violation. Simple as that.
I was 'not' arrested by DHS/CBP.
They simply got a warrant retroactively after they already did it. Released without charge, but they just invented some paperwork afterwards that an anonymous dog had alerted (judge signed it about 12 hours after I was 'not' arrested). No mention on the PC paperwork who the dog was or who the handler was, as far as I know they didn't exist.
So yeah that's nice in theory but in practice they can simply jail you without recording an arrest, then retroactively invent PC. When I ran a federal background check it came up with no arrests, despite the fact I was imprisoned.
The Supreme Court was clear that if your skin is not white, this is probable cause. Also location is important (like being at a car wash) or speaking with an accent.
Is Yiddish accent still OK? Or is that scheduled for next term?
ICE has been denying due process to the people they've kidnapped, including US citizens and children.
The whole point is people are being arrested and deported without probable cause, or based on their race, and deported without real due process.
There is no chance for these people to call their lawyer or wife, in fact ICE can't even tell you where some of these people are being detained.
Understand what is happening here.
It matters because the wording of the OP implies they're targeting citizens, but in reality they're getting caught in the dragnet. That's regrettable, but it's unclear how it's worse than any other sort of law enforcement, which also have false positives. According to wikipedia the felony conviction rate in the US is only 68%, which implies for every 100 "criminals" that are arrested, there are 32 "innocent" people. That's probably far worse than ICE's rate of catching citizens, so does that mean we can call the entire US law enforcement apparatus a "paramilitary force"? One final thing to note, Canada's conviction rate is even lower at 62%, and China's is even higher at 99.975%.
More than zero.
The number US citizens actually deported is greater than zero, although I'm not sure how many under Trump.
If they can violate any one's rights, they can violate anyone's rights.
Are they arresting citizens whose behavior does not warrant arrest? I have read about several arrests, but the citizens were all interfering with lawful detentions that ICE was carrying out.
Yep, the children were interfering, sleeping in their beds.
If they act as MITM, they can intercept cell phone calls.
Stingrays are somewhat it common practice. But they force every device to attach to look for the one they want. And its reasonable to feel queasy about that for any number of reasons.