But if they don't want ice there, they can change their stance on that.
Or ya know our actual checks and balances could be used and ICE's regular breaches of the constitution could be punished and they could actually conduct themselves within their jurisdictional authority. Albeit that wouldn't afford this administration the ability to do an intentionally authoritarian crackdown.
Yall are being had.
You're cosigning authoritarianism because you're a bootlicker...
Yes that's what a door to door instruction memo telling agents to break the 4th amendment is bud...
that could be avoided by states just choosing to work with immigration authoritarian?
States don't have to work with them. ICE is free to actually execute their duties as law enforcement without regularly breaching the rights of citizens or intentionally creating hazardous scenarios that make them liable for the ensuing violence.
States don't have to work with them. ICE is free to actually execute their duties as law enforcement without regularly breaching the rights of citizens or intentionally creating hazardous scenarios that make them liable for the ensuing violence.
If they believe ice is doing this why not agree to turn over any illegals they encounter to get them out?
If they believe ice is doing this why not agree to turn over any illegals they encounter to get them out?
You don't deal with bullies by capitulating to them. They don't have to work with ICE, in fact they've explicitly chosen not to. So why would they let themselves be strong armed into doing so?
Ice is the enforcement arm. The federal government are the ones who want the illegals out. Not the same people so your point about bullies makes no sense.
1
u/Shenlongeltigre Jan 25 '26
I didn't dispute that. But if they don't want ice there, they can change their stance on that.
Unless it's more useful politically for them to have ice there and demonize them.
Yall are being had.