Post New

A sniper took aim at an ICE building this morning, killing two before killing himself:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/24/us/dallas-shooting-...

Wednesday’s shooting at a Dallas ICE field office that left at least one victim dead and two others hospitalized was at least the fourth instance of violence or a threat at an ICE or Customs and Border Protection facility in Texas this year.

Some are claiming that the shooter was targeting detainees, but that is not true. Anti-ICE messaging was written on the shell casings.

Events like this only give Lord Trump an excuse to escalate the police state.

Steve...HBTT

And I guess we have Tyler Robinson to thank for making messages engraved on shell casings the New Thing to do.

There were reportedly anti-ICE engravings on the shells found.

Anti-ICE messaging was written on the shell casings.

That narrows it down to a bat shit crazy person and anyone else who believes in the right to due process, as stated in the U.S. Constitution. Twice.

I’m going with bat shit crazy person.

That narrows it down to a bat shit crazy person and anyone else who believes in the right to due process, as stated in the U.S. Constitution. Twice.

It's a good thing that the rhetoric from the political left on this issue has been calm, reasoned, and well-thought out.*






































*Oh, right. It's been the exact opposite of any of that.

It's a good thing that the rhetoric from the political left on this issue has been calm, reasoned, and well-thought out.

Trump, right after Kirk was murdered:

“We have radical-left lunatics out there, and we just have to beat the hell out of them.”

A couple of quotes from Trump at Kirk’s memorial service:

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

“He [Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie.”

Dope, meet reality.

“It can only good happen.”

ALL of the victims of today’s shooting were actually detainees. Not a single ICE officer was injured.

Do we know the motive? No.

Has that stopped the right from leaping to conclusions & weaponizing the attack against political enemies? No.

What you're posting...

...has zero to do with crazy people shooting up ICE facilities.

left wing rhetorical has been cuckoo-bananas for 25 years. Now all those chickens are coming home to roost.

Accept some accountability. Or don't.

Nothing says "anti-ICE" like killing the people ICE is kidnapping.

And I guess we have Tyler Robinson to thank for making messages engraved on shell casings the New Thing to do.

Nothing new under the sun department. During WWII, writing messages to the enemy on shells/bombs/torpedoes was common.

Like this:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.r...

Jimmy Doolittle, attaching a metal the Japanese had given him, before the war, to one of the bombs he would drop on Tokyo.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1...

Steve

...a metal the Japanese had given him

A medal, not metal....that new interface on the Fool did have it's advantages.

Steve

Nothing says "anti-ICE" like killing the people ICE is kidnapping.

Were the people that were killed in the process of being kidnapped by ICE?

ICE has been alleged to have detained people without following due process, which could be (colloquially) described as kidnapping. But for the most part, they're a law enforcement agency and they're allowed to detain people who are in the country unlawfully. I would expect that the vast majority of their detentions are lawful, and that the people who are being detained are legally subject to that detention. That's not kidnapping.

ICE has been alleged to have detained people without following due process, which could be (colloquially) described as kidnapping.

Yeah, thanks.

“When the government arrests any person inside the United States, it must be required to prove to a judge that there is an actual reason for the person’s detention.
Our client and others like him have a constitutional and statutory right to receive a bond hearing for exactly that purpose.
Yet the Trump administration is now ignoring that right and jailing people arbitrarily without a hearing. The Fifth Amendment says that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the promise of our Constitution remains a reality.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-class-acti...

Yeah, thanks.

While the linked article certainly raises a serious allegation of statutory violation, it doesn't turn the ICE's detention into a kidnapping. If you're present in the country unlawfully, you're subject to detention. Being detained when you're lawfully subject to detention, by the agency that has lawful authority to detain you, isn't the same thing as being kidnapped.

Talking about ICE practices using these terms runs the very serious risk of putting Democrats (and progressives) back into the same position with voters that hurt them so much in the last election - viewing immigration issues primarily from the perspective of people who have entered in violation of the law. Absolutely ICE should be required to comply with the statutory processes for bond hearings, if indeed they are applicable. But talking about lawful detentions as "kidnappings" is probably a bad idea.

their detentions are lawful, and that the people who are being detained are legally subject to that detention.

Then the detainees have the right to protection by ICE. Family members of the detainees killed/injured now have standing to sue for wrongful death, failure to protect, etc--against the US govt. The vultures see a fresh FAT carcass to pick.

Got a question that maybe deserves a discussion. The police seems to be able to detain you for up to 48 hours in most states without charging you and can release you at any point up to then with seemingly little consequence unless it was a flagrant violation. The standard for stopping someone is reasonably articulable suspicion, IIRC, and I think that applies to immigration detentions.. I'm unsure when probable cause kicks in with immigration. I'm a little concerned because I read about US citizens detained and not let out in the 48 hour period. I'm concerned that the administration may not be too concerned about unlawful detention.

Nothing new under the sun department. During WWII, writing messages to the enemy on shells/bombs/torpedoes was common.

Point taken. But this seems to be a new thing with small arms shooting not done in a time of war. Or at lease I've not heard it being done before here in the U.S.

I'm concerned that the administration may not be too concerned about unlawful detention.

Same. Also unlawful disappearing...

"As of the end of August, the whereabouts of two-thirds of more than 1,800 men detained at Alligator Alcatraz during the month of July could not be determined by the Miami Herald.
Around 800 detainees showed no record on ICE’s online database. More than 450 listed no location and only instructed the user to “Call ICE for details” — a vague notation that attorneys said could mean that a detainee is still being processed, in the middle of a transfer between two sites or about to be deported."

"A spokesperson for the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis referred the Herald to ICE when asked for comment.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to multiple requests for comment."

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration...

Got a question that maybe deserves a discussion. The police seems to be able to detain you for up to 48 hours in most states without charging you and can release you at any point up to then with seemingly little consequence unless it was a flagrant violation. The standard for stopping someone is reasonably articulable suspicion, IIRC, and I think that applies to immigration detentions.. I'm unsure when probable cause kicks in with immigration. I'm a little concerned because I read about US citizens detained and not let out in the 48 hour period. I'm concerned that the administration may not be too concerned about unlawful detention.

If you read the complaint discussed in the link upthread (repeated below), it's got a nice summary of what the ACLU believes is required.

I think it might be helpful to think of detention in the criminal proceedings as involving two different steps. There's the standard for arresting you, which requires probable cause. Then there's the standard for pre-trial detention - keeping you locked up until there's actually a judicial determination that you're guilty of the crime.

So in order to arrest you, the LEO needs either a warrant (where a judge determines probable cause) or the LEO needs to themselves possess probable cause to arrest you (ie. if they've actually seen you commit the crime). There are exceptions, caveats, etc. "Stopping someone" under a Terry stop has a lower standard (reasonable articulable suspicion, as you point out) - but that's only for a few moments. They can't lock you up for 48 hours without probable cause.

Pre-trial detention has a higher standard. The presumption is that you can't be punished unless you've been convicted of a crime, so the government has to demonstrate that there's some compelling reason for locking you up before that adjudication has been made. Generally that's when you pose either a flight risk or danger to the community, though there are exceptions and caveats, etc.

Immigration involves civil detention, not criminal detention. Congress has passed some provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that govern the potential release of civil detainees. The BIA decision discussed in the ACLU complaint runs through some of the statutory language involved. The DOJ has determined that Congress has not provided for pre-trial release for many (most?) civil detainees under the INA, and (presumably) that this is okay under the Constitution because this is a civil (not criminal) process. I say presumably, because I don't believe it was actually raised in the BIA case. The ACLU is arguing that this violates the constitution - that civil detainees (like criminal arrestees) must be provided pre-trial release absent some reason not to provide it.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-class-acti...

Same. Also unlawful disappearing...

Probably most of us here have seen the video of a college student, accosted on the street, by un-uniformed, masked, agents, shoved into an unmarked van, and flown to a prison in Louisiana, for the crime of publicly objecting to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Was she here on a legal student visa? If they can do it to one, they can do it to thousands.

Steve....HBTT

The ACLU is arguing that this violates the constitution - that civil detainees (like criminal arrestees) must be provided pre-trial release absent some reason not to provide it.

So, the current DOJ, along with traditional, legal interpretation provides more rights essentially to criminal than civil detainees?

Pete

So, the current DOJ, along with traditional, legal interpretation provides more rights essentially to criminal than civil detainees?

Yes, that's absolutely correct. Citizens of the U.S. have more rights than non-citizens generally, and certainly have more rights than folks who have entered the country illegally. That doesn't mean that non-citizens have no rights, but they have fewer.

The ACLU lawsuit is going to run squarely into the legal analysis in an Eighth Circuit case called Banyee v. Garland, which upheld the constitutionality of the code section that the ACLU is arguing that DOJ is wrongfully processing these folks under. Basically, the Eighth held - and said the SCOTUS had held - that indefinite mandatory civil detention while deportation processes are ongoing is perfectly constitutional:

The rule has been clear for decades: “[d]etention during deportation proceedings [i]s . . . constitutionally valid.”Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003).

In Demore, the Supreme Court considered a due-process challenge to the same mandatory-detention provision at issue here. See 538 U.S. at 514; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). It reaffirmed its “longstanding view that the [g]overnment may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.” The reason, according to the Court, was that “Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” In other words, the government has more flexibility when dealing with immigration. See, e.g., United States v. Quintana, 623 F.3d 1237, 1242 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the “constitutional[] valid[ity]” of detention pending deportation means that the usual limits on Terry stops “do[] not apply to . . . administrative arrest[s] based upon probable cause that an alien is deportable”); see alsoWong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) (explaining that the power to deport “would be vain if those accused could not be held in custody pending [an] inquiry into their true character and while arrangements were being made for their deportation”).

It is not as if Demore broke new ground. Half a century earlier, the Supreme Court upheld detention without bond for deportable aliens who were active Communists. See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 541–42 (1952) (holding that their “support[] [for] . . . the Party’s philosophy concerning violence g[ave] adequate ground for detention”). Just as in Demore, no individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk were necessary.See id. (refusing to require the government “to show specific acts of sabotage or incitement”); see also Demore, 538 U.S. at 524 (emphasizing that “the aliens in Carlson were not flight risks” and “had not been found individually dangerous”). The government could continue to hold the detainees simply “by reference to the legislative scheme.” Carlson, 342 U.S. at 543.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/...

For a 30,000 foot explanation of why this is so, consider what the government is actually doing when it detains a citizen vs. a deportable alien. A citizen already has the lawful right to remain in the country, and go wherever they please. An alien who has entered the country illegally does not. That alien might be eligible under the law for some visa, or asylum request, or parole determination, or some other adjudication. That adjudication might then grant them the lawful right to be present in the country and go about their business. But they don't have it automatically. Congress does not have to give them the right to move about the country while any of those processes are pending.

So when the government detains a citizen under the criminal law while they are awaiting trial, the government is taking away an existing liberty before any adjudication has taken place. But when the government detains an alien pending the outcome of their immigration trial, the government is declining to give a new liberty to that alien until the adjudication has happened. The government doesn't have to let the alien have liberty to move around the country unless and until they've received legal admission, if it doesn't want to. That's different than for a citizen, where the government has to let you have your freedom as a matter of right.

I hadn't read those cases prior to this thread - but it's consistent with what I recall from the dim old days of Con Law back as a 1L. So while I can't speak to whether the ACLU is correct in their statutory arguments, I'm pretty sure they've got tough sledding on the argument that aliens unlawfully present in the country have any right to pre-trial release.

Albaby should be on SCOTUS.


And after that I should be our Ambassador to France.

The evening news showed a pick of those cartridges with the "anti-ICE" lettering on them.

Recognize them? They looked like .30-06 in a stripper clip, ie a Mauser, or a Springfield. The Kirk shooter supposedly used a Mauser chambered for .30-06. What are the chances two nutters in a row would both pick century old .30-06 bolt action rifles, unless they are offered as really cheap, Saturday night, nutter specials?

Pic of the alleged Dallas shooter's ammo.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCfAUisEeLU/hq720.jpg?sqp=-...

Springfield .30-06 cartridges in a stripper clip.

https://www.northridgeinc.com/product-p/sc-03-114a...

The loser in Butler, PA, used an AR-15 style rifle, which is the most popular weapon for nutters throughout Shinyland.

Steve

read the complaint

Thanks Al, lotta heady reading as I tend to have questions. I looked up different code sections and scanned them too. :) Thanks Bnaksy for posting that.

So Trump kills the Immigration Bill prior to election because he sees it as not in his favor for the election. A little while ago a bill passed giving him money for courts and detention centers. After we get the money the procedure is changed to apply a code section for arrivals to those found within the borders that allows indefinite detention? Before that were we allowing a bond hearing and they could get out? Now that we have the money we have indefinite detention centers? Why are we violating the law AFTER we got money appropriated, but not before? Or were we violating a different law before?

There's no mention of a rational given for the change in sections, so I assume none was given? You would think they'd use boilerplate and choose some issue to accuse them of that fits the section. Did they just arbitrarily refile on everyone being held to change the Code section, or was it only new detainees?

The law should only be violated in true emergencies - like a Pandemic - not because Miller wants to. So we are proceeding to violate basic human rights of due process even after we were given the money to deal with it properly.

So what do we put on the documents we use to deport them?

So what do we put on the documents we use to deport them?

SPANKEE NO WANT !! WAAAAAAAHHH !!!!! CHANGE DIAPER !!!! AGAIN !!! AGAIN !!!

After we get the money the procedure is changed to apply a code section for arrivals to those found within the borders that allows indefinite detention? Before that were we allowing a bond hearing and they could get out? Now that we have the money we have indefinite detention centers? Why are we violating the law AFTER we got money appropriated, but not before? Or were we violating a different law before?

There's no mention of a rational given for the change in sections, so I assume none was given? You would think they'd use boilerplate and choose some issue to accuse them of that fits the section. Did they just arbitrarily refile on everyone being held to change the Code section, or was it only new detainees?

All good questions. ICE would certainly claim that they're not violating the law - that's something that will need to be hashed out in court. I don't think they'll hide that they've changed their interpretation of the code provisions. That's something that happens with new Administrations. Different department heads will have different ideas of what the current law requires, and they'll pursue different policies based on those interpretations.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.