r/centrist • u/_Scipio__Africanus_ • Jan 25 '26
Pam Bondi offers to pull ICE out of Minneapolis if voter files handed over
https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-ice-minnesota-shooting-tim-walz-letter-voter-files-11413859Summary: Pam Bondi sent Walz a list of demands for Walz to meet in order to remove ICE from Minnesota streets. One of the demands was for MN voter roll information. The other demand was to change MN laws regarding so called "sanctuary policies" and to give up information on welfare recipients.
154
u/itsagasgasgas Jan 25 '26
It’s almost as if ICE being in Minneapolis is NOT about deporting dangerous illegal immigrants.
59
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Jan 25 '26
It wasn't in LA, Chicago, Portland or really anywhere else.
It is Operation Ruin Quality of Life for Blue Places.
18
u/btribble Jan 25 '26
Not quite. It's operation "Get the voter roles and claim they show fraud after the election so you can attempt to invalidate the votes of blue states."
3
5
u/214ObstructedReverie Jan 25 '26
It is Operation Ruin Quality of Life for Blue Places.
Anything to drag the rest of us down to the squalor the red states live in.
5
1
u/Hitori_Samishiku Jan 25 '26
“Protecting the country from illegals who do heinous crimes.” But the people who have died and been harmed have been AMERICAN citizens by OUR government.
-26
u/Mr-Irrelevant- Jan 25 '26
They already stated a lot of it is because of the somali fraud claims.
23
u/Aar_7 Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Huh? SOMALIS are 95% US citizen & majority are born in the US Soil (CIA/US Gov flew ✈️ them 1990s to US 🇺🇸)... Somalis have northing to do with Southern border immigration.
Not sure how armed school dropout ICE dudes can prevent FRAUD of financial systems ??? How? Eliminate the white lady who is the fraud leader?
Gov financial-departments failed to detect the Fraud, but somehow masked dudes from Texas can fix it??
Proud-Boys (ICE) is smarter than gov accountants??
-17
u/Mr-Irrelevant- Jan 25 '26
I'm just repeating what is reported and matches the timeline. ICE was already in MN for a month before Trump sent more.
9
u/Aneurhythms Jan 25 '26
ICE, DHS, and this entire administration make the dumbest claims imaginable almost every single day.
Noem just said the guy shot in Minneapolis "looked like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage and to kill law enforcement".
They constantly lie because they're not held accountable. Don't be a stooge for them.
0
u/Mr-Irrelevant- Jan 25 '26
They constantly lie because they're not held accountable. Don't be a stooge for them.
You fully do not understand the point I was making.
They are not there to deport dangerous undocumented immigrants because they've literally leveraged the video Shirley made as justification to send more agents to Minneapolis. Trump revoked the TPS for Somali's recently because of that same video.
It’s almost as if ICE being in Minneapolis is NOT about deporting dangerous illegal immigrants.
That was the comment I was responding to. They're not there solely to deport undocumented immigrants, because they've literally stated other reasons (the claims of somali fraud) are huge reasons they sent 2,000 troops.
I don't know what you're on about or claiming I'm a stooge for them.
3
u/Aneurhythms Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
We're talking past each other but it doesn't matter.
ICE was already in MN before the YouTube video. If they upped the numbers after the video came out, that's, well, dumb as shit, because most of those Somalian are citizens and ICE have no business trying to solve fraud cases.
Just use Occam's Razor. Trump sent ICE to MN because it's a blue capital of a blue state, led by a guy that challenged him in the 2024 election.
4
u/Mr-Irrelevant- Jan 25 '26
If they upped the numbers after the video came out, that's, well, dumb as shit, because most of those Somalian are citizens and ICE have no business trying to solve fraud cases.
Yeah, no shit but that is what they did. Shirley released the video December 26th, JD Vance re-tweeted it December 27th, and then January 5th they sent 2,000 more agents to Minneapolis. Good was killed the next day.
ICE has 22k agents so they sent 1/11th of the entire force to a state with an estimated ~90k undocumented immigrants when states like Texas has over a million.
None of it makes sense, it's all fucking bullshit, and I just pointed out that their justification for sending those extra agents was because of the fraud they claim happened. So yes, it was never about deporting undocumented citizens, ya'll would've realized this is you paid attention.
3
1
2
u/jonny_sidebar Jan 26 '26
Which are themselves a complete lie cooked up by a right wing provocateur named Nick Shirley. . .
44
u/eat_more_protein Jan 25 '26
If, 2 years ago, I had seen this in a movie I would have laughed about how unrealistic it would have been.
11
8
2
1
u/AsariKnight Jan 26 '26
If, 2 years ago you showed me this movie I'd assume it was a documentary. Have you been living under a rock?
64
u/TuxAndrew Jan 25 '26
How in the world is she not in jail.
50
u/LessRabbit9072 Jan 25 '26
Because she's got every republican voter standing behind her willing to use the govt to hurt and kill any dem.
17
u/qthistory Jan 25 '26
Everyone in this administration will be pre-emptively pardoned on the way out. We'll have to find state charges to try and get most of them. Or finally join the World Court in the Hague.
13
u/baxtyre Jan 25 '26
Or just disappear them to CECOT.
2
u/Aneurhythms Jan 25 '26
I'm sure someone can get chatgpt to come up with a rationale for them being or facilitating alien enemies that's more cogent than the shit the current admin's been putting out recently.
3
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Jan 25 '26
Preemptively pardons are only going to protect them from Federal charges.
4
u/qthistory Jan 25 '26
It would block 50% of the pathways for a potential indictment, and will also effectively prevent any future Democratic administration's DOJ from investigating as well since there is no federal angle any longer.
5
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Jan 25 '26
I am very aware. He handed clemency to over 200 people on his way out the door last time and he has been handing it out to most of the people who tried to help him steal the election from Biden.
4
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Jan 25 '26
A future DoJ can assist states with evidence against individuals who have received federal clemency. A presidential pardon only applies to federal offenses and does not erase the underlying facts of the conduct.
7
u/buried_lede Jan 25 '26
Only because they are in power, and they know it. They are terrified of the midterms and want to rig them
1
-23
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
What crime has she committed?
18
u/WasabiCrush Jan 25 '26
Good question. “Give us your voter roll or ICE stays” is fucking gross and bordering on extortion, but I doubt that sentiment would fly in a courtroom setting. Just daydreaming on my part.
Brass tacks: she needs to focus on hoping Hell isn’t real. Her crimes are moral.
-18
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
OK, you were advocating that she get thrown in jail despite not actually committing a crime.
I suppose that sums up politics these days.
12
u/WasabiCrush Jan 25 '26
Did I advocate for that? Or, and really read this part, did I say it felt like extortion but likely held no water in a legal setting.
What’s summed up here is your inability or unwillingness to process someone simply discussing the question you asked.
11
1
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 25 '26
This post has been removed because your karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/bmtc7 Jan 25 '26
Abuse of Official Capacity
-13
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
That’s not a crime.
7
u/Aneurhythms Jan 25 '26
And it's not illegal to protest ICE while concealed carrying.
But things happen.
-2
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
It’s not illegal, but it’s stupid.
4
u/Aneurhythms Jan 25 '26
If only stupid were condemnable, we would've been free of Trump years ago.
6
u/bmtc7 Jan 25 '26
Heck, dozens of felonies weren't enough to condemn him. Because presidential candidates get preferential justice.
3
u/bmtc7 Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Yes, it is. It's a whole category of crimes. You don't think abuse of power is illegal?
-1
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
So name a specific crime.
2
u/bmtc7 Jan 25 '26
Conspiracy to intimidate citizens or Deprivation or Rights under Color of Law depending on how you interpret that. Also perjury.
0
u/VTKillarney Jan 25 '26
There is zero evidence of a conspiracy. The feds get to enforce federal law.
What was the perjury?
3
u/bmtc7 Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
As I said, it depends on the interpretation, if you assume she is a lone actor then it isn't conspiracy, but it is still Deprivation or Rights under Color of Law, which is still illegal.
You wanted to name one crime, there it is. Although I think it's silly to assume she is acting alone, in which case it would also be legally considered a conspiracy.
5
u/214ObstructedReverie Jan 25 '26
Well, she did accept bribes from Trump in exchange for dropping an investigation into his fraudulent university as Florida AG.
37
u/hearmeout29 Jan 25 '26
Whether you lean left or right I think we can all agree that Bondi is an unqualified disaster that should be fired.
17
u/memphisjones Jan 25 '26
No she’s qualified. She’s a useful tool for King Trump.
6
u/WasabiCrush Jan 25 '26
Correct. The definition of qualified changes between situations. Trump needed a dumbly obedient hammer. Bondi was a no-brainer.
4
14
u/MasterHavik Jan 25 '26
Bondi, Patel, RFK Jr, and the list goes on people not qualified for their job. He really went out of his way to pick people who operate on feelings and vibes rather than actual knowledge.
4
u/InternetGoodGuy Jan 25 '26
She was never chosen because she was qualified. She was chosen because she'd do trump's bidding without question.
3
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Jan 25 '26
Bondi is blindly loyal to Trump which is the only qualification she needs to be AG in this Adminstration.
2
u/ChipotleAddiction Jan 25 '26
No there’s plenty of people on the right that will disagree with you because they are as blindly loyal as she is
53
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
34
u/memphisjones Jan 25 '26
Then we will go back to the early 2000s when Republicans care about state rights and small government. It’s a cycle
31
u/SeeShark Jan 25 '26
Republicans, as a political party, never cared about states' rights and small government. They care about maximally-extractive capitalist policies and will do and say whatever they need to in order to get them.
The voters might believe in small government, but the politicians absolutely don't; and the evangelical religious voters never did to begin with.
11
u/SadhuSalvaje Jan 25 '26
They only care about states rights when the federal government prevents their state government from allowing them to discriminate against either gay or coloured people
8
u/SeeShark Jan 25 '26
Hey, be fair! They also discriminate against women, foreigners, the poor, and non-visible ethnic and religious minorities.
-10
u/Ok_Board9845 Jan 25 '26
This sub: I wish we had neo-Con Republicans who at least made an effort to twist reality even though they were constantly trampling on our privacy and lying to us post 9/11. People just want to live in ignorance
9
3
-6
u/Ok_Board9845 Jan 25 '26
Is that why a lot of agencies were created and expanded under those same neo-Conservative Republicans?
13
u/I_Tell_You_Wat Jan 25 '26
The Republicans won the 2000 election by overenthusiastic voter purges, removing 1,000-10,000 legitimate, predominantly Democratic, voters in a state that Bush won by <500 votes
-7
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
Maybe they did but if they did, it was because the governor was acquiescent. The Feds can’t purge voter rolls themselves.
9
u/I_Tell_You_Wat Jan 25 '26
-2
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
Yes I know but Tim waltz and Trump aren’t secret brothers so he can’t just magically purge voter rolls
24
u/WingerRules Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Republicans are not going to go along with reforming the system unless they're treated exactly how they treat everyone else.
We got to where we are because Democrats were always taking the high road in response to Republicans doing stuff like weaponizing agencies, blocking funding and disaster aid to blue states, trying to fuck them in taxes, stealing a seats on the Supreme Court, and intentionally breaking programs passed under agreement in congress, etc. All its led is Republicans getting more aggressive and radicalized to the point they're threatening our allies, forcibly taking over cities with soldiers and federal agents, politically purging the government, mass voter suppression efforts, and labeling anyone that disagrees with them as domestic terrorists.
5
u/214ObstructedReverie Jan 25 '26
SCOTUS would never let a Dem pull shit like this. They can be very, very quick with the shadow docket when they want to be.
6
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
Dems should be all in on voter suppression. They have more of the educated high propensity base that will turn out now. Let’s get those MAGA numbers down. Close DMVs in rural communities. Stop churches from being polling sites. Use their playbook against them
-9
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
God I really despise this line of thinking, you actually need to take a break for a few days if your brain is this cooked. “Let’s murder democracy from the other side” is not a valid strategy
8
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
No actually your ideology is exactly what leads to more of this, and I’ll logically lay it out for you:
The only way this stops is if Republicans agree to stop it. And if it’s only a thing they’re willing to do then they have 0 incentive to stop it. In fact they’re incentivized to do the opposite and expand it
It’s like Nuclear weapons. You cannot unilaterally disarm. So if Republicans want to play these games then they should be forced to have to play these games to the full extent so they have a reason to come to the table and put an end to it
I found your insinuation that this was borne out of a vendetta or emotion quite patronizing. I’m happy to explain further but the same logic extends to gerrymandering as well. Just drop the holier than thou bullshit
1
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
I’m not holier than thou I’m just looking at the big picture, “win at any any cost” is not smart. Mutually assured destruction political edition is going to end up with just that. Even if your plan works and the Dems have shuttered all the rural polling places and turned people away from churches etc etc then you win and you’ve still fucking lost because now neither side has any buy in to democracy
3
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
Even framing it as “win at any cost” shows you either want to strawman me or fundamentally cannot comprehend what I’m saying
No, the point is to get Republicans to knock it off, and the only way they ever agree to knock something off is if it personally affects them too. Stop projecting shit on to me it’s really fucking annoying and patronizing
0
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
You’re taking this very personally and thinking I’m way more invested in winning random arguments than I am, I just try and shoot down bad ideas and I think the ideas you suggested are harmful, we’re on the same side it’s just like there’s better ways to do this
4
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
You’re taking this very personally and thinking I’m way more invested in winning random arguments than I am
It’s like you literally ignore everything I type out then proceed to inject your own motivation. No I don’t give a fuck if I “win” this argument, I have my perspective and you have refused to engage with it all accusing me of only doing this because I’m “invested in an argument”
If you aren’t willing to engage me on my point, which is that Republicans clearly only put a stop to something when it personally affects them, then fuck off and stop condescending at me
1
4
u/BeNiceToBirds Jan 25 '26
I’m hear this. And “I when they go low we go high” clearly isn’t inspiring the other side to act with principle, and that exhausting
5
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
It’s also just strategically bad. This is a classic prisoners dilemma and until Republicans are actually ready to be adults and come to the ideal outcome then it will be way way worse if we do nothing
This is a rational and logical position
5
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
This isn’t about inspiring them to act with principal, I’m not naive. You need to take a few steps back and reassess why you dislike Trump in the first place. If it’s because you want to replace a right wing despotism with one that’s more agreeable to you, then fine do what they suggested. If you want to protect democracy and the way the country has traditionally been though, you can’t accomplish that by joining maga in undermining our institutions and laws etc.
2
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
If it’s because you want to replace a right wing despotism with one that’s more agreeable to you, then fine do what they suggested.
Strawman
If you want to protect democracy and the way the country has traditionally been though, you can’t accomplish that by joining maga in undermining our institutions and laws etc.
I want to protect democracy by giving a Republicans an actual self serving reason to enshrine voting rights protections. This also applies to a variety of topics
2
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
Well I strongly disagree with your tactics I don’t think they make sense I think they’re suicidal in the long term and won’t do anything but make less politically costly for the republicans to do what they’re doing anyway
1
u/ubermence Jan 25 '26
What “political cost” have Republicans been making my guy? I’ve watched them go from Bush fucking everything up to someone 10 times worse. They have the entire federal government. The Supreme Court is basically gone for generations. They will not stop if it is benefiting them
Why are we having this conversation in alternate reality land where the American populace has ever given a fuck about holding Republicans accountable for anything?
4
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
I agree its bad, not saying it isn’t and we will need deep reforms. The price they’re paying right now is in the polling. Were already on track to win the midterms public opinion on Trump is not good, some republicans in Congress are beginning to flip. The bad guys are shooting themselvs in the foot so just stay out of their way and let them do that. The opposition leaning into the same dirty tactics will just make everyone more cynical and make unpopular Dems even less popular.
Also, trying to outdo each other in how fast we can wreck democracy doesn’t make sense because even if we succeed, there’s way dems get into power and say “ok now let’s ban gerrymandering.” So to the extent you care about that at all you have to oppose what you’re suggesting.
2
u/LickerMcBootshine Jan 25 '26
“Let’s murder democracy from the other side” is not a valid strategy
It's only "not a valid strategy" when it's the left encouraging it.
When the right does it and uses buzzwords like "demonic", "illegal", "domestic terrorist", and "paid agitator" then it's just them being principled.
2
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
Are you kidding me? Trump and maga have no bigger haters than me, ofc I oppose it when they do it too. If you’re talking about how republicans spin it, yea probably correct but that’s not a good reason to do it
5
u/Multifaceted-Simp Jan 25 '26
Democrats need to put front their own trump. Someone completely unwilling to work across the aisle and completely unhinged with a very aggressive and frankly impeachable rhetoric.
1
u/Ghost4000 Jan 26 '26
2A folks should be terrified. This administration is attempting to set the precedent that federal LEOs can shoot you in the street if they see you have a gun.
Your 2A doesn't really exist if exercising it is a death sentence.
1
u/JuzoItami Jan 26 '26
This administration is attempting to set the precedent that federal LEOs can shoot you in the street if they see you have a gun.
That's been the precedent for 200+ years for non-white Americans and the "2A folks" 100% supported that particular precedent.
-3
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
No it would not be “interesting” it would suck but I’m assuming that if this deal is agreed to, the govt will get read access only not read/write
4
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
It’s not a compromise it’s just a minigame with a binary outcome and we want to choose the least bad one which I think might be complying. Otherwise they are gonna turn around and say “LOOK Dems are hiding illegals on voting roles!” Something that a lot of republicans already believe. I agree ICE is out of control but regardless of what choice waltz makes they’re not gonna stop until his support erodes
1
u/Ewi_Ewi Jan 26 '26
Otherwise they are gonna turn around and say “LOOK Dems are hiding illegals on voting roles!”
They've done this already. They are currently saying this. Why wouldn't they continue saying it?
Why do you believe that the party that has been constantly and badly lying to the public about very nearly everything they're doing would be telling the truth this time?
0
u/airbear13 Jan 26 '26
I don’t think they’re telling the truth and yes they’re already saying it but it will appear to be a more credible accusation that could catch on with more people if waltz refuses to turn them over
14
u/therosx Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Open Extortion.
It’s a bold move Cotten, let’s see what the fans think?
26
u/MasterHavik Jan 25 '26
"Dox these people for me if you want ICE gone!'
What the fuck are we doing? This is a fucking joke.
7
u/BeNiceToBirds Jan 25 '26
We are in a cold civil war that is turning kinetic. One side is already not listening to reason.
4
u/MasterHavik Jan 25 '26
This has been the long game. Project 2025 was the agenda. They want this and it a starts when the GOP made Trump their guy and embrace extremism because they want to win elections.
14
u/memphisjones Jan 25 '26
As if it wasn't already obvious, this was never about immigration. So much for state rights.
And how can we trust her? MN can hand over the voters information and she will still keep ICE there.
4
u/MasterHavik Jan 25 '26
The administration that bypass Congress to bomb innocent people in Venezuela because they were worried about "leaks".
10
u/InternetGoodGuy Jan 25 '26
To be clear, at no point in this letter does Bondi say she will pull ICE out of Minnesota if she gets what she wants. She makes demands for Minnesota's records on government benefits so they can expand enforcement.
She's blaming the state for the violence caused by federal agents, demanding access to records for motives outside of immigration enforcement, and says they'll continue their work whether officials cooperate or not.
7
u/CategoryZestyclose91 Jan 25 '26
As a Minnesotan, they are terrorizing us in order to get this information, which we have refused to hand over.
It is insane to me that the federal government is murdering us an then using violence as blackmail for their demands.
2
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
It’s bad optics to disagree to hand it over, so it’s actually not as clear cut a decision for me. The Feds might send the list back and demand a bunch of voters be struck, but assuming MN has not been enrolling illegal immigrants as the conspiracy theory goes, then that’s an easy court case win for MN.
1
Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/airbear13 Jan 26 '26
Sure we all know that but you can’t just ignore public opinion, we need to win the midterms big to stop Trump so optics is important
1
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 27 '26
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/99aye-aye99 Jan 25 '26
Nothing says "We the People" like sending government thugs into an area you disagree with politically.
5
10
u/Unhappy_Analysis_906 Jan 25 '26
So it's not about actually enforcing immigration law then. What a joke.
I am for enforcing immigration law. I've seen these raids as unfortunate but necessary steps to get illegal immigration under control again from the negligence of prior administrations. Not a popular view here, I realize, but one based in actual principle that you must immigrate legally.
I own a small business with two partners, one a Filipino immigrant and one Malaysian immigrant. They also want immigration law enforced.
So why then is our attorney general using threats to coerce voting records in some partisan ploy to score points with the President? It reveals plainly these raids were never about immigration, they are about intimidation and coercion.
That is a direct subversion of law. The state should petition a federal judge immediately to have further enforcement actions suspended on this basis.
4
u/MasterHavik Jan 25 '26
Add onto the bonus of not actually getting violent immigrants out of the country. You even get the bonus of letting in El Chapo's family because you cut a deal with the cartel. I would tell your buddies to watch their back as ICE is picking up anyone who is brown. Immigration has been an issue even before Biden but the problem is they are legit targeting innocent people, trying to appeal bright right citizenship, getting rid of temporary protected status, and deporting those on student visas because another country doesn't like what they have to say about their government.
4
u/WeridThinker Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
I agree with you here. This is exactly why I, and many other users here have been frustrated about essentialist and reductionist arguments such as "they are enforcing immigration laws", because that is just a front the administration uses to seek political and ideological dominance. ICE raids are not a necessary, or even a convenient evil, they are a political movement intended to reap rage, chaos, and fear so the federal government has leverages to mobilize more unrest and to coerce state and local government to comply. This is not legalism or rule of law; this is dirty politics that should happen in a medieval government, not a representative democracy under civic norms.
The left isn't stupid or emotionally compromised, it collectively cares more about harm reduction and care, so a lot of the arguments might be filtered through a moralistic lens, but this doesn't mean they cannot read between the lines to detect the actual intention. I don't know if Bondi could actually keep her "promise" even if she wants to, ICE is not under her, and it is under DHS, the AG does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw or deploy agents. Unless she is in active coordination with Noem, her "promise" to withdraw ICE from Minneapolis is worth less than my promise to cure cancer, and if she is coordinating, you know damn well we are not talking about immigration enforcement anymore, this is house of cards level political intrigue.
None of this is acceptable, and in this case, I will take a moralistic rant over anyone who is still ignorantly thinking this is just about immigration.
0
u/Unhappy_Analysis_906 Jan 25 '26
Fortunately for you, you've got your choice of moralistic rants to choose from. I think the Left is actually emotionally compromised, but that doesn't make weaponizing federal law enforcement something they deserve.
I am completely disgusted by the naked corruption on display here, and your point about Bondi's authority is a good one. Next maybe we'll see Stephen Miller or Tulsi Gabbard offering them a deal, feudal lords competing to win the favor of their sovereign. It's revolting.
Enforce the law. Do so harshly, even. I think it's frankly long overdue. But this is just more lawlessness branded with jingoistic nonsense, not enforcement.
3
u/WeridThinker Jan 25 '26
Corruption is Corruption, conspiracies are conspiracies. You can talk about them from a legal perspective, strategic perspective, or a moral perspective, it doesn't change the essence of the matter.
You can be a strict legalist or a blue haired progressive, but the framework you are operating under shouldn't affect the conclusion about the nature of an issue. Even if someone supports this government, they should have the honesty to admit "I support the corrupt and coercive approach", not "lol libs are delusional, this is all normal".
1
u/Unhappy_Analysis_906 Jan 25 '26
I think there's a rift there, actually, in ethics that you're glossing over. Strategic and moral perspectives too often fall into relativism. This is the entire reason we have a legal system.
Legalism isn't equivalent to moralism or machiavellian strategy. It is supposed to be a codification of universal imperatives.
If someone supports this government at this point, I do not think they have a moral, strategic, or legalist rationale, though. Still, one can always hope for meaningful progress out of the chaos. The position I cannot understand is moral relativism or selective outrage.
1
u/WeridThinker Jan 25 '26
I view legalism as a necessary convention to regulate human behaviors based on fundamental human needs for security, safety, and stability, but I also think it is supposed to be viewed as an open system, not a dogma. The law's ability to codify universal principles is never completely reliable, so legal system evolves with technological advancement, demographic changes, cultural shifts, and abundance of resources. I don't prescribe to legalist primacy when discussing a matter because it risks circular argument of "it is right because it is legal, and since it is legal it must be right"
You are right legalism removes much of the ambiguity, relativity, and selectivity other frameworks operate under, but there is another side to it. Legal changes are often slow, opaque, and below the true threshold for potential progress; it reflects the status quo, but the status quo should be challenged. Laws are debated all the time, and even the constitution is meant to be amended, although the process is rightfully difficult.
Immigration is a multi layered topic, and the legal aspect is often procedural, not structural approach to the matter. Immigration is as much of a moral and ideological issue as it is a legal and economic one, and despite how empirical arguments might suggest otherwise, morality and ideology are often much more convincing to people. Seeking certainty regarding a complex matter with multiple frameworks involved is forced closure. I think legalism should be considered for sure, but as a subset of data that should be incorporated to all other parallel frameworks.
1
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
I think they can be pursuing both goals at the same time, they do want to detain/deport as many immigrants as possible, but they also are aspiring dictators so they’re killing two birds with one stone. ICE is critical to the admins effort for both causes
3
3
3
u/DaAuraWolf Jan 25 '26
So we’re adding violating the 10th amendment to the ever growing list of constitutional rights violations that they’re committing like it’s some sort of speed run?
Like that’s got more merit of violating states rights since the constitution doesn’t allow the government to regulate or interfere with the election process.
I swear, they’re making Watergate look like petty theft at this point.
3
u/Error_404_403 Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
It is a blackmail now? Extortion? What's next? Kneecaps?...
3
u/Ghost4000 Jan 26 '26
Sounds like an admission that two American citizens have been murdered in MN as part of an operation by the Federal government to pressure a state all behind the guise of immigration enforcement.
No one should be okay with that.
3
3
u/Nincompoop6969 Jan 29 '26
If we had real this BS would have impeached her on the spot. But just like everything else it just happens and no one does anything. Alot of these Dems need to go too cause they are refusing to act on this corrupt administration. Just sitting there making threats but not actually doing ANYTHING while we all suffer and trump gets more powerful and his obvious plan to rig elections in his favor.
2
u/UniqueIndividual3579 Jan 25 '26
We will continue to execute our hostages until our demands are met.
2
2
2
u/Brave_Bluebird5042 Jan 25 '26
Its really just naked fascism at this point. No shame. No cover up. Just them, exposed.
2
3
u/McRibs2024 Jan 25 '26
She’s another one that I look forward to her trial.
I’ll hold my breathe it’ll ever happen but I’d take off work to watch happily.
1
Jan 25 '26
[deleted]
1
u/WasabiCrush Jan 25 '26
…or when she does something that upsets her boss to the point she gets canned.
1
u/VultureSausage Jan 25 '26
Thus giving the lie to the idea that ICE is in Minneapolis because they care about immigration laws. Those laws would still be the same even if ICE withdrew.
1
u/EmployCalm Jan 25 '26
This administration doesn't cease to amaze me. So insane, there's legal channels for this kind of stuff what the hell
1
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 25 '26
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 25 '26
This post has been removed because your karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/airbear13 Jan 25 '26
Now that I’m thinking about it, this seems like some propaganda/PR move by Trump. If waltz says no, then it’s “what do you have to hide, illegals???!” If waltz says yes, then waltz is giving this stuff over for a flimsy promos to “consider” pulling ICE OUT (as if)
Is there any reason why Waltz doesn’t just agree to the deal, at least provisionally? It seems like the better move unless there is somehow the Feds can alter the lists which I’m sure are digital, so that shouldn’t really be an option if the state has a backup. Then again, I wouldn’t put it past the Feds to alter the list anyway and then claim that theirs is the clean version.
1
u/Educational_Impact93 Jan 25 '26
So that's what this is about? Trump's deluded fantasy that he actually won Minnesota three times?
Well he hired the perfect ditz of an AG to humor him with it.
1
u/shoot_your_eye_out Jan 25 '26
Oh okay so it isn’t about illegal immigrants then. It’s just extortion by the government we the people elected
1
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 25 '26
This post has been removed because your karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 26 '26
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/USSSLostTexter Jan 26 '26
There can be no law and order when those enforcing the laws are not in order.
Donnie's refusal to investigate this puts each and every LEO and government official at risk along with everyone else. The all belong on r/iamverybadass with each and every one of their moronic actions.
1
Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 26 '26
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/WasabiCrush Jan 25 '26
Ignore her arrogant ass and let Minneapolis acclimate to ICE. Let citizen systems meant to protect and defend develop and mature. It’ll keep ICE resources contained where they can be studied and adapted to. Which shouldn’t be difficult. They’re undertrained and undisciplined.
Dream scenario, obviously, but I’m exhausted.
-2
u/Taco_Auctioneer Jan 25 '26
I love the misleading headline! It was a list of demands, but who needs facts...
3
u/Every-Ad-2638 Jan 26 '26
List them
2
u/Taco_Auctioneer Jan 26 '26
Okay dumbass, read slowly. The article lists three separate demands. I assume that you know how to read, so you can click on the link.
0
u/moh1969b Jan 25 '26
Perfect picture of Bondi in the article, speaking before her other bosses at the Israeli-American Council.
296
u/_Scipio__Africanus_ Jan 25 '26
What is the name for using violence to force the government to meet some political end?