Minnesota

[dogcows 1,461]

35 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I said no such thing, liar.  The other 90% aren't innocent; they just aren't guilty of violent crimes.  Speaking of which, you never answered what number you are OK with.

No it's not, not in this context.

Also, to the question of papers, ICE can use color of skin as a reasonable cause to question:

 

There is already a term for this: Kavanaugh stops. And he’s already tried to backtrack that in his latest ruling. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop

Quote

In a separate case, Trump v. Illinois, where the state challenged the use of the National Guard as part of Operation Midway Blitz, the Supreme Court issued an order in December 2025 that upheld a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the National Guard. In this order, Kavanaugh added a concurring statement that clarified his language from the earlier order in Vasquez Perdomo, writing that federal officers "must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity". Some legal analysts said that Kavanaugh used the statement to try to corral highly controversial immigration enforcement actions that had occurred since the Vasquez Perdomo order.

It was funny how he ruled race cannot be even one factor among many for college admission…. But it’s ok to consider it when scooping up random people on the street! After this attempt at reversal in another case, I expect Kavanaugh to fully reverse himself when the final ruling in the case (it’s a temp ruling now) comes out. Generally, temporary stays aren’t considered precedent. So right now nobody should be claiming these stops have been deemed constitutional by this court, which would override long-standing precedent and the plain text of the 4th amendment.

And you never asked me what number I was ok with. You asked somebody else that. And that’s good, because I don’t have a number. The constitution says you should have a warrant for an arrest; we have some reasonable exceptions: you’re witnessing the crime or there’s obvious reasonable suspicion that you may have witnessed it. Scooping people up based on accent or skin color and hoping for a good batting average finding criminals is just plain wrong. 

[jerryskids 7,284]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

There is already a term for this: Kavanaugh stops. And he’s already tried to backtrack that in his latest ruling. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop

It was funny how he ruled race cannot be even one factor among many for college admission…. But it’s ok to consider it when scooping up random people on the street! After this attempt at reversal in another case, I expect Kavanaugh to fully reverse himself when the final ruling in the case (it’s a temp ruling now) comes out. Generally, temporary stays aren’t considered precedent. So right now nobody should be claiming these stops have been deemed constitutional by this court, which would override long-standing precedent and the plain text of the 4th amendment.

And you never asked me what number I was ok with. You asked somebody else that. And that’s good, because I don’t have a number. The constitution says you should have a warrant for an arrest; we have some reasonable exceptions: you’re witnessing the crime or there’s obvious reasonable suspicion that you may have witnessed it. Scooping people up based on accent or skin color and hoping for a good batting average finding criminals is just plain wrong. 

So, it is currently the law of the land, thanks.

Back before ICE was a fascist Nazi Hitler group, say under Saint Barack, if ICE raided a place they suspected of harboring illegal aliens, did they instantly know exactly who was a citizen or not, or would they detain people until they could determine their citizenship status?  In essence, asking for papers.

[HellToupee 2,406]

These people are idiots 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

54 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

No, that is not constitutional.

White privilege strikes again btw.

Oh, I get it... you think that the person doing the reporting is telling the truth.  That's so cute.

[dogcows 1,461]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So, it is currently the law of the land, thanks.

Back before ICE was a fascist Nazi Hitler group, say under Saint Barack, if ICE raided a place they suspected of harboring illegal aliens, did they instantly know exactly who was a citizen or not, or would they detain people until they could determine their citizenship status?  In essence, asking for papers.

Read the quoted text again - he reversed himself in Trump v Illinois. But I don’t think that has filtered down to the agents who have been caught on video admitting they are picking people up based on their accents.

There may be some confusion by agents at this point, but as I understand it, his newer ruling should supersede his prior one.

Your other question is really interesting, as this has changed quite recently (a few months ago)

Since the 80s, “Blackies” administrative warrants (not from a judge) have been used to allow workplace raids. But a recent ruling has challenged that. The reason is that the Blackies warrants were for civil penalties (illegal border crossing) and didn’t reach into criminal liability for the business owners. Law changes since that time have exposed business owners to criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers. So now a judge has ruled that these non-judicial warrants can no longer be used for workplace raids. More detailed info on this below, especially the 2nd link.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alamdarhamdani_judge-edison-ruling-ice-admin-warrant-activity-7333507210280374273-j6cM

https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/blogs/enforcement-edge/2025/06/people-are-not-documents

[TimHauck 3,533]

49 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

Also, to the question of papers, ICE can use color of skin as a reasonable cause to question:

 

No, race alone can not:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/25A169

To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors

 

[Fnord 2,728]

32 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

AI Overview

Yes, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to question people based on physical appearance, language, and location, effectively permitting profiling factors like skin color and accent, despite concerns from civil rights groups that this leads to unconstitutional racial profiling

. While targeting someone solely on race is generally forbidden, a September 2025 Supreme Court decision lifted previous restrictions, giving agents legal cover to use these characteristics as justification for stops and questioning in immigration enforcement, particularly in Los Angeles. 

Key Points from Recent Rulings:

• Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem: A 6-3 Supreme Court decision granted an emergency request to allow ICE agents to stop and question individuals based on factors previously deemed unconstitutional, including apparent race, ethnicity, language (like Spanish), and presence in certain locations (like low-wage workplaces).
• Impact on Profiling: This ruling allows agents to use what looks "suspicious" to them, creating a legal basis for targeting Latinos and others who fit common immigrant profiles, according to organizations like the ACLU of Wisconsin.
• Reasonable Suspicion: While agents need "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone for questioning, the ruling broadens what qualifies as such suspicion, allowing race and appearance to be primary factors. 

In Summary:
While the intent of the law is to prevent profiling based on race alone, recent Supreme Court actions have permitted ICE to use race, ethnicity, and related factors as grounds for stopping and questioning individuals, raising significant concerns about racial profiling and its impact on communities, notes The Brookings Institution. 

Thanks. Without getting into the deeper discussion of our current SCOTUS, there is some nuance to this.

Per multiple sources (I used the NAACP because it's very straightforward):

Quote

• Remain calm and do not run away
• You have the right to demand a warrant before allowing anyone into your home. That warrant must be issued by a judge in a court of law. An “administrative warrant” signed by anyone other than a judge does not give ICE authority to enter your home.
• If arrested, you have the right to speak with a lawyer.  
• Do not sign anything without the advice of an attorney.  
• You have the right to record any interaction with ICE as long as you are not interfering with an arrest.  
• If you are a U.S. citizen, you do not have to provide your ID or proof of citizenship with the exception of driving. If driving, you are required to give your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.  
• If you are a U.S. citizen, you can say “I am a U.S. citizen and you do not have authority to arrest or detain me.”  If they decide to arrest you anyway, you have grounds for a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging unconstitutional detention or arrest. 

ICE has been arresting US citizens, which have the right to politely tell ICE, essentially, to fock right off. Unless someone is directly interfering with operations (and I suspect a halfways decent lawyer could easily claim that blowing a whistle/honking a car horn does not constitute direct interference) ICE has little jurisdiction over you. So an ICE officer stopping and questioning an American citizen on the street based solely on their skin color, language, or accent is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights. 

[TimHauck 3,533]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh, I get it... you think that the person doing the reporting is telling the truth.  That's so cute.

Lol, what is there to doubt? The guy, who gave his full name, that stated he was asked for ID while charging his Tesla didn’t even have a problem with being stopped.  I figured that was going to be your comeback, something like “if this guy didn’t even have a problem with it then why do the libs?”

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, what is there to doubt? The guy, who gave his full name, that stated he was asked for ID while charging his Tesla didn’t even have a problem with being stopped.  I figured that was going to be your comeback, something like “if this guy didn’t even have a problem with it then why do the libs?”

I don't think that guy is lying, I think the reported isn't telling the whole truth.  See, you think that ICE is only targeting black and brown people because that's what the reported intimated.  At not point in that article did they mention white people at all.  They didn't mention one way or the other about white people as getting checked or not getting checked.  So, it's out there (and you're believing him), that only minorities are being checked.  Whenever I see a far leftist organization doing reporting, I know they're lying, unless forced to tell the truth.

[dogcows 1,461]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

ICE has been arresting US citizens, which have the right to politely tell ICE, essentially, to fock right off. Unless someone is directly interfering with operations (and I suspect a halfways decent lawyer could easily claim that blowing a whistle/honking a car horn does not constitute direct interference) ICE has little jurisdiction over you. So an ICE officer stopping and questioning an American citizen on the street based solely on their skin color, language, or accent is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights. 

Exactly.

[TimHauck 3,533]

9 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't think that guy is lying, I think the reported isn't telling the whole truth.  See, you think that ICE is only targeting black and brown people because that's what the reported intimated.  At not point in that article did they mention white people at all.  They didn't mention one way or the other about white people as getting checked or not getting checked.  So, it's out there (and you're believing him), that only minorities are being checked.  Whenever I see a far leftist organization doing reporting, I know they're lying, unless forced to tell the truth.

That’s cute if you think ICE was asking white people for ID at the Tesla charging station.

[MDC 8,297]

Never thought I’d see the day when self-proclaimed patriots would defend law enforcement demanding US citizens show their papers and detaining them without cause. 

[seafoam1 3,615]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Never thought I’d see the day when self-proclaimed patriots would defend law enforcement demanding US citizens show their papers and detaining them without cause. 

Poor mdpee is trying to start the conversation over. It totally went over his head the first time. Give it all a go again. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s cute if you think ICE was asking white people for ID at the Tesla charging station.

The fact that the reported didn't say the opposite and that the guy interviewed wasn't quoted as saying they weren't checking white people, is confirmation that they were checking everyone.  See, because if the reporter specifically said the ICE agents weren't checking white people when they were, that's defamation and slander, correction, libel.

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

Never thought I’d see the day when self-proclaimed patriots would defend law enforcement demanding US citizens show their papers and detaining them without cause. 

Like Hack, you're assuming there was no cause.

[Strike 6,163]

8 minutes ago, MDC said:

Never thought I’d see the day when self-proclaimed patriots would defend law enforcement demanding US citizens show their papers and detaining them without cause. 

I never thought I'd see the day when a sitting President would let millions of foreigners invade my country, but here we are.

[MDC 8,297]

 

[TimHauck 3,533]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The fact that the reported didn't say the opposite and that the guy interviewed wasn't quoted as saying they weren't checking white people, is confirmation that they were checking everyone.  See, because if the reporter specifically said the ICE agents weren't checking white people when they were, that's defamation and slander, correction, libel.

The reporter did specifically say they weren’t checking white people.  I thought you acknowledged that earlier and just claimed they were lying.

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The reporter did specifically say they weren’t checking white people.

Where in the article you posted, did the reporter ever mention white people?

[seafoam1 3,615]

9 minutes ago, MDC said:

 

  

[TimHauck 3,533]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Where in the article you posted, did the reporter ever mention white people?

It said “all of them were people of color.” 

If you’re going to make some stupid semantics argument like “wHiTe Is A cOlOr!” or “tHaT’s NoT mEnTiOnInG wHiTe PeOpLe!,” lol.

[thegeneral 3,852]

Good work ICE. Highly trained and super functional civil servants

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,607]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTol__5ggYy/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
 

any mention of this?  Why isn’t this plastered everywhere?  But Renee good blah blah fock the left 

[TimHauck 3,533]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTol__5ggYy/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
 

any mention of this?  Why isn’t this plastered everywhere?  But Renee good blah blah fock the left 

What is it for those that don’t have Instagram 

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It said “all of them were people of color.” 

If you’re going to make some stupid semantics argument like “wHiTe Is A cOlOr!” or “tHaT’s NoT mEnTiOnInG wHiTe PeOpLe!,” lol.

Ok, reading comprehension and understanding, is escaping you.  Let's dumb this down as far as I can go.  Here's the paragraph:

Quote

It's unclear why Border Patrol agents chose to question Keleekai and other drivers who were also charging their vehicles. All of them were people of color. All of them were able to prove they were in the U.S. legally after showing documentation.

Where there white people there?  If not, how can the agent check them?  Why was the reporter ONLY using this one example?  Were there NO OTHER incidents where people were being checked?

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

9 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTol__5ggYy/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
 

any mention of this?  Why isn’t this plastered everywhere?  But Renee good blah blah fock the left 

No, this will be ignored or written off as one bad apple and not an example of the majority.  Something that can't be afforeded to ICE.

[HellToupee 2,406]

Look at these idiots. I can’t believe this is rea

 

 

[TimHauck 3,533]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ok, reading comprehension and understanding, is escaping you.  Let's dumb this down as far as I can go.  Here's the paragraph:

Where there white people there?  If not, how can the agent check them?  Why was the reporter ONLY using this one example?  Were there NO OTHER incidents where people were being checked?

You’re right, this must have been the first time in history there were no white people at the Tesla charging station.

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You’re right, this must have been the first time in history there were no white people at the Tesla charging station.

Funny enough, I've been to many places with Tesla charging stations, and while I see cars... very rarely, I never actually see people in them.  I have no idea if the owner is white, black, hispanic, or whatever.

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

5 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Look at these idiots. I can’t believe this is rea

 

 

It's funny, from time to time I hear people say that we should revoke the 19th amendment and I just laugh it off.  Then I see things like this and say... maybe they have a point.

[dogcows 1,461]

50 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Like Hack, you're assuming there was no cause.

You should always assume there’s no cause unless the government can prove otherwise.

If the next prez is liberal and starts coming door to door for MAGA’s guns, are you all gonna comply and assume they have cause? If you believe your own comments, you will. How about if they assume all white people are domestic terrorists and just round them up for being white and having a southern accent? Just comply, right???

[TimHauck 3,533]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

You should always assume there’s no cause unless the government can prove otherwise.

If the next prez is liberal and starts coming door to door for MAGA’s guns, are you all gonna comply and assume they have cause? If you believe your own comments, you will. How about if they assume all white people are domestic terrorists and just round them up for being white and having a southern accent? Just comply, right???

That’s diffe(R)ent

[dogcows 1,461]

Just now, TimHauck said:

That’s diffe(R)ent

The inability for people to understand that they could be next is incredible.

On MLK Jr. day, that message is especially poignant. He spoke about it all the time.

”We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

[seafoam1 3,615]

6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You should always assume there’s no cause unless the government can prove otherwise.

If the next prez is liberal and starts coming door to door for MAGA’s guns, are you all gonna comply and assume they have cause? If you believe your own comments, you will. How about if they assume all white people are domestic terrorists and just round them up for being white and having a southern accent? Just comply, right???

I got pulled over for a mistake a cop made a couple months back and I complied. I had license, insurance and registration in hand before he got to my car. I even drove away a free man.

Imagine that.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,695]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You should always assume there’s no cause unless the government can prove otherwise.

If the next prez is liberal and starts coming door to door for MAGA’s guns, are you all gonna comply and assume they have cause? If you believe your own comments, you will. How about if they assume all white people are domestic terrorists and just round them up for being white and having a southern accent? Just comply, right???

I always assume that the leftists are lying.  Sorry.  

 

Yes, comply.  You'll get the gun back.  Then, we impeach the entire Democrat party for violating people's 2nd Amendment rights.  There's an order in which things should be done.  Removing agression should always be Step 1.

[seafoam1 3,615]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I always assume that the leftists are lying.  Sorry.  

It's not hard to not get shot in the head by a cop. Liberals haven't learned that trick yet. 

[Mark Davis 445]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The inability for people to understand that they could be next is incredible.

On MLK Jr. day, that message is especially poignant. He spoke about it all the time.

”We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

As much as we differ, that statement is correct.  It's like I told Tim one time recently in a discussion, the issue has become that there are differing views now on what we view as successfully living together and what country we want.  In the 90s you had Clinton and GW Bush largely.  Those sides were politically different, but by in large those who supported both wanted many of the same things for the country, even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I think our fracture has become more than the methods to the end now, the end is different and that is a huge issue.  I don't know how we fix it without some transformational leader who unites everyone.  In our system where states are rushing to gerrymander districts and therefore our reps become more and more extremists and are politically rewarded for taking extreme views, it seems very unlikely.

[dogcows 1,461]

Just now, Mark Davis said:

As much as we differ, that statement is correct.  It's like I told Tim one time recently in a discussion, the issue has become that there are differing views now on what we view as successfully living together and what country we want.  In the 90s you had Clinton and GW Bush largely.  Those sides were politically different, but by and large those who supported both wanted many of the same things for the country, even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I think our fracture has become more than the methods to the end now, the end is different and that is a huge issue.  I don't know how we fix it without some transformational leader who unites everyone.  In our system where states are rushing to gerrymander districts and therefore our reps become more and more extremists and are politically rewarded for taking extreme views, it seems very unlikely.

[seafoam1 3,615]

6 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

As much as we differ, that statement is correct.  It's like I told Tim one time recently in a discussion, the issue has become that there are differing views now on what we view as successfully living together and what country we want.  In the 90s you had Clinton and GW Bush largely.  Those sides were politically different, but by in large those who supported both wanted many of the same things for the country, even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I think our fracture has become more than the methods to the end now, the end is different and that is a huge issue.  I don't know how we fix it without some transformational leader who unites everyone.  In our system where states are rushing to gerrymander districts and therefore our reps become more and more extremists and are politically rewarded for taking extreme views, it seems very unlikely.

If you fight against law enforcement you better have a damn good reason other than not liking a political approach. 

Voting is what solves politics. Be careful what you vote for. 

But going out into the streets and rioting divides. That is not politics unless you truly want to wage war. A real war. 

[Gladiators 2,053]

Didn’t the liberals think the government was fine to shut things down for COVID? We were supposed to just trust the government/science.