this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
322 points (100.0% liked)

politics

27101 readers
3541 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
 

State legislatures across the country are accelerating efforts to shape immigration enforcement policy after the deadly shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal agent, raising tensions between local leaders and the Trump administration.

From California to New York and Illinois to New Jersey, they’re pushing a range of bills aimed at limiting enforcement and protecting people targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while turning up the rhetoric with comparisons to the Gestapo.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 104 points 2 days ago

I hope they are able to strip them of those masks so we all learn all of their identities and every operation every person is involved in is a matter of public record (that cannot be tampered with by the demons in this administration - every state gets a copy).

I remember when conservative Karens LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS over citizens going about their normal lives were wearing masks out of consideration to others when we were enduring a pandemic.

Now they all say nothing as ARMED, UNIDENTIFIED MASKED THUGS are going around terrorizing neighborhoods in America.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In Illinois, a Democratic state senator has filed legislation that would bar anyone hired by ICE under Trump from obtaining employment in state or local law enforcement.

And in New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul signaled she’ll support legislation that would allow residents to bring civil lawsuits against federal immigration officials for constitutional violations.

Now that's some policy I can get behind.

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm confused on the second one. Can we currently not sue these assholes for invading our houses without a warrant?

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago

They're largely protected by jurisdiction and qualified immunity. This removes the jurisdiction hurdle presumably. If NY law says that it's their jurisdiction then the ruling will be unable to avoid through federal actions. For civil liability this means they will have to defend their qualified immunity under NY standards. That's how I read it anyways.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I am not a lawyer.

I think the key word here is "civil". Right now they're violating Federal law, which would involve higher courts, FBI, etc. A civil case would put all this awfulness in the hands of the State where the (Federal) law was broken.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 21 hours ago

This sounds great. If we can pass legislation like this in enough states, as well as legislation that requires ICE to remain unmasked and constantly wear ID (and more legislation requiring local police to intervene in cases where ICE does not obey the aforementioned, obstructing the ICE agents from continuing their work until complete compliance), we might be able to set up a “screw your neighbor” kind of authority.

  • local police can be held responsible for not obstructing the out-of-compliance (and potentially-fraudulent) ICE agents
  • ICE agents can be held civilly responsible for their state crimes (but what about people who need help/anonymity when filing civil lawsuits?)
  • State governments can issue warrants for ICE agents that don’t appear, don’t pay, or otherwise don’t comply with civil lawsuits

Can a state support people in creating lawsuits?

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 63 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Put bounties out on all federal agents in your state. Ban them from operating in your state period. Impound/tow any vehicles registered to federal agencies, have police raid the hotels where they are staying, arrest them without charges and agree to release them only once ICE has been completely disbanded, and Trump is in custody. Seize any cash, weapons, cellphones they have. Go through their devices, infiltrate their communication systems

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago

Highly unlikely, but I like where your head is at.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ooooohhh. Civil forfeiture of their cars, vests, weapons, and face masks ....

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 1 day ago

Civil Forfeiture is perfect. I always say that these psychos pass stupid laws because they forget that they can be used against them, too. Then Dems get power and don't use them.

Civil Forfeiture is one. It's heinous, but it's legal, so exploit the shit out of it MAGA-style.

Honestly, civil forfeiture has as much legal protection as qualified immunity.

I want to see democratic AGs actually do this.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That sounds nice, but Trump would (correctly) declare that an insurrection and it would trigger an actual civil war.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago

He already had an Insurrection, and it was eventually determined that beating the shit out of law enforcement is worthy of honor. So let's get honorable.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How can it be an insurrection when magats are the ones who are waging war on legitimate Americans?

Traitors don't get to make that call.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

States arresting all federal authorities for being in the state would be an insurrection, even if it was in response to a bunch of illegal shit from the feds.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

ICE is going door to door in the Twin Cities now.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Like "are you hiding any jews in this house" style??

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Yes apparently

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I am not sure what point you're trying to make spamming this. It's no good to resist? Bend the knee because they're armed?

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

The point is that it's irrelevant what the law says ICE can or can't do. They can and will enter without a warrant. Your rights don't exist anymore.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Okay but our messaging shouldn't be "it's useless to resist," we need more people to resist in any capacity they can.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Who's saying it's useless to resist? I'm saying it's useless to rely on the law to protect you

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

the meme can be interpreted that way, and was originally used to portray some level of naivety on the part of the victim.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The meme is saying that if you're being robbed, you need to fight, they aren't going to stop because it's illegal. My understanding of the meme is it's mocking the idea that following the rules will protect you from corrupt police. Your rights won't protect you

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Don’t answer. They can’t come in without a warrant. If they do shoot first ask questions later.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

A few things to keep in mind here:

  • They have body armor
  • Not all states have Castle Doctrine - most do not, obligating you to attempt to flee instead of making a stand
  • They have numbers and firepower you do not
  • First-floor windows render strong doors moot
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

If they’re kicking in MY door they’re up to no good. There’s no probable cause here. So they’re either going to drag me off and do stuff to me or I’m gonna die fighting them.

I know people get on here and talk a big game. But this is my hill.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Minnesota does. The use of force must be proportional to the threat. And how they are entering.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

“If they do shoot first and ask questions later”

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Correct. And they will walk away.

Edit: apparently this is not true anymore.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Who's gonna enforce that policy? Police unions support ICE. The Minnesota FOP put out a statement saying so. You can write every bill in the world, it won't mean shit without fundamental changes to the police.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago

I think officially it would be the state national guards? If it actually came to confrontation between state and federal law enforcement.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well that and the police are outnumbered. Even if they would work against ICE, things probably wouldn't go well.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have weapons enough to deputize some folks.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

We are long overdue for some judges to step in and deputize folks too.

[–] modus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

We're just going to ignore the T-Rex they brought with them?