this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
94 points (97.0% liked)

politics

29616 readers
1470 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump’s administration has reportedly instructed immigration enforcement officers to cut back on arrests inside courthouses and to no longer enter homes without a warrant, backing off two controversial policies that have sparked violent and chaotic scenes in the president's mass deportation campaign.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices across the country were verbally instructed by their superiors that they should no longer enter homes unless they have a judicial warrant, two Homeland Security officials told NBC News.

Last year, ICE’s then-acting director Todd Lyons told officers to rely on the agency’s own permissions to enter a person’s home — rather than seek a warrant from a judge. Homeland Security then issued a lengthy press release defending the policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

field offices across the country were verbally instructed by their superiors

But not in writing, so it isn't a policy. More like "Look guys, things are getting a little hot right now, so for the next couple weeks, let's keep a lid on things, until it blows over. Once we can convince the Demotards that we're playing nice, they'll restore our funding, and then we can go back to having the fun we all joined up for."

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The heat immediately died down when they stopped killing white people. I had people screaming at me that this wasn't racial, but the second you stop killing white people you stop seeing as much pushback.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've heard this before, that Good and Pretti only got attention because they were white, but I don't buy it. I think they got attention because A) Their deaths were legitimately outrageous, and B) There was lots of good video, from multiple angles.

There absolutely is systemic racism in every level of our society, but I still believe that video makes the biggest difference between an incident becoming famous or not. George Floyd wasn't white, yet his death STILL sparked an enormous response, because it was on VIDEO.

Our media relies on video more than anything else, so if you can illustrate a genuine atrocity with a clear video, that's going to run in every media outlet, no matter what color the victim is.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

There's plenty of video of people getting killed by police or otherwise extrajudicially. It happens pretty frequently.

The only televised visible killings that can actually cause the government to stop doing the things they are doing that are causing the deaths are the white people.

The killing of George Floyd was a Flashpoint, just like Flint water or BLM. The racial component had no power to affect the mostly white state or federal government, and all those thing resulted in MORE police power, not less.

People only really care when white people die.