US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters

ThatRobGuy said:

I've posed this question in most all of the ICE related threads thus far, and I don't know that I've heard a good definitive answer on it. (it just typically drifts off back into "how bad their current tactics are")

That is...

How do we thread this needle?

If states and localities are no longer going to play by the same rules they did from 2006-2015 (in terms of cooperation with the feds)

And it's considered "unacceptable" for approaches like canvasing, random screening, questioning, and temporary detention to be used...

Then how exactly does this job get performed in a way that's not going to highly visible, and perceived as disruptive? (but still effective in the goal of removing people who aren't authorized to be here)


It'd be like if TSA was still tasked with their current objective, but were told
- No, you can use a body scanner on someone, that's an invasion of privacy
- No, you can't search someone's luggage without a warrant
- No, you can't ask people questions or demand to see their boarding pass to prove that they have a reason to be there unless you already have definitive probable cause established
- No, other enforcement agencies aren't going to assist in providing information about prior criminal records or maintaining a no-fly list (those are unpopular and those other agencies don't want the blowback themselves)

"Okay TSA, get out there an do the job of making sure there aren't any potential terrorists in the airports" (and then being surprised when it devolves into TSA agents arguing & fighting with angry flyers and randomly tackling people who happen to be wearing turbans)

When you take away the collaboration and more sophisticated refined approaches, they're pretty much reducing it to the only approach being utter randomness and trying to "eyeball it", which is far more susceptible to mistakes & conflicts, superficial perceptions, and potential biases.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

I've posed this question in most all of the ICE related threads thus far, and I don't know that I've heard a good definitive answer on it. (it just typically drifts off back into "how bad their current tactics are")

That is...

How do we thread this needle?

If states and localities are no longer going to play by the same rules they did from 2006-2015 (in terms of cooperation with the feds)

And it's considered "unacceptable" for approaches like canvasing, random screening, questioning, and temporary detention to be used...

Then how exactly does this job get performed in a way that's not going to highly visible, and perceived as disruptive? (but still effective in the goal of removing people who aren't authorized to be here)

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

It'd be like if TSA was still tasked with their current objective, but were told
- No, you can use a body scanner on someone, that's an invasion of privacy
- No, you can't search someone's luggage without a warrant
- No, you can't ask people questions or demand to see their boarding pass to prove that they have a reason to be there unless you already have definitive probable cause established
- No, other enforcement agencies aren't going to assist in providing information about prior criminal records or maintaining a no-fly list (those are unpopular and those other agencies don't want the blowback themselves)

"Okay TSA, get out there an do the job of making sure there aren't any potential terrorists in the airports" (and then being surprised when it devolves into TSA agents arguing & fighting with angry flyers and randomly tackling people who happen to be wearing turbans)

When you take away the collaboration and more sophisticated refined approaches, they're pretty much reducing it to the only approach being utter randomness and trying to "eyeball it", which is far more susceptible to mistakes & conflicts, superficial perceptions, and potential biases.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

Certain border states have had checkpoints in the past

The legal framework governing that came from Supreme Court cases like United States v. Brignoni in the 70s.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brignoni-Ponce set the rule that apparent Mexican ancestry can be one of the factors in forming a reasonable suspicion for stopping a vehicle, but cannot be the sole basis for an immigration stop. In Vasquez-Perdomo, the Court, through Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, agreed that apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion for immigration stops, but it can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient features. The Court agrees that (i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent are all relevant factors that may be considered along with ethnicity.


Or in plain terms...

If an officer's primary area of focus is finding undocumented people in the country, given the nation of origin for a huge percentage undocumented folks are nations of Latino ethnicity and Spanish speaking, and in a metropolitan area that's designated itself as a safe haven and refuge for undocumented people, the Latino guy with an accent is more likely than the white guy with the typical Minnesota accent to be someone who falls into the undocumented category when it comes to who's getting questioned.

Superficial? Sure, but it's not like those perceptions came out of thin air.


If you were on a task force looking to crack down on drug use, and you saw these two people standing in a parking lot:
View attachment 375614

And this guy:
View attachment 375615

Which one are you leaning towards as being the person you're going to question?

Is it "judging a book by it's cover"? Yes, to a degree...but by the same token, there's a reason why books have covers.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

The second guy. He looks like he actually has enough money to afford drugs and I know how those prep school kids behave.

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

That’s a good analogy. What I would do is do away with quotas. I would withdraw ICE and CBP from all sanctuary cities. I would strictly enforce immigration laws in all other locations so that illegal immigrants had to go to sanctuary cities or risk being deported.
They seem to want them there, let them have all of them. Then they can reap all the benefits they claim illegal immigrants bring.
Then I would cut federal funding to states with sanctuary cities because they are violating federal law.

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

He might have some Adderall but that’s about it

Click to expand...

Belk said:

I like this idea other then the federal funding piece. Last I heard, the SCOTUS had ruled they are not breaking any laws by not cooperating with federal agencies. Do you have statute ofwhat law they are breaking?

Other then that I think it an excellent experiment to see if the benefits of immigration live up to the claims. Isn't that the whole idea of having states rights?

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Or cocaine, extasy, weed, we know that white middle and upper class people use drugs at the same or higher rates as everyone else. They just don't get charged with it as often.

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

I don’t know if you could cut federal funding, I think Trump has threatened to but that doesn’t mean anything

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

What changed is that an increasing number of cities started employing sanctuary policies and declining to participate in the Secure Communities Program and Priority Enforcement Program provisions (like honoring detainer requests and notifying ICE about impending releases)


Meaning, during Obama's tenure.

State and local law enforcement (and judges) would check immigration status during arrests, traffic stops, and court hearings, and detain the person, and notify ICE so they could quietly come pick them up in a van.

Or, they would say "Hey, we checked this guy's status, and he's not a citizen, here's the time & place where we'll be releasing him from the county facility, so if you want to pick him up, that's where he'll be"

State and Local policies shape the ICE tactics that are used for finding people.


By mid-2016 (the last year of Obama's presidency), of the top 10 cities (by undocumented population), 8 of the 10 were refusing to participate in those programs.

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

Believe it or not I found that people who drove a Taurus were more likely to have drugs than others. We even used an old Taurus to buy drugs undercover. It was like a magnet

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

I used to get pulled over a lot in an older model white Toyota corolla. All the time in fact.

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

Could it be because of the way you were driving, or were they just profiling?

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

Presuming you are absolutely correct

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

What you described is a federal agency that has allowed local and state agencies to do their work for them for too long. Local governments are stretched thin and are no longer willing to spend their resources on federal obligations.
This is akin to a work team-project where one team member allows the others to do all the work but is willing to take credit for any successes. Once the team gets fed-up and insists the delinquent participate, that member either from incompetence or intent then screws up so royally that the others take back the task(s).
That's where we are. ICE/Homeland Security, either by incompetence or intent are making a mess so large that they hope (even insist in some cases) that the local agencies take the obligations back from them.

Click to expand...

MarcusGregor said:

Or they could just quietly do their jobs like they did during the Obama and Biden administrations who both deported more than Trump has without terrorizing citizens. That's always an option.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

It is, I've covered it (probably in too much exhaustive detail) in a handful of the other threads on here...

City and state budgetary and resource constraints had little to do it.

It was a case of blue city mayors wanting to be seen as "in tune" with younger/progressive voter bases and not wanting to be seen as "the bad guys" in the eyes of said voters.

If they were stretched so thin that they can couldn't possibly afford to hire 2-3 administrative office staff to make phone calls to ICE to arrange transfers, or keep a person in a holding cell for an extra day until they can be picked up, then they certainly couldn't afford some of the programs they have where they're extending certain state-level benefits streams to undocumented individuals living in their jurisdictions.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

The Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2023 made undocumented immigrants eligible for MinnesotaCare — the state’s health insurance program — as of Jan. 1, 2025. Nearly 17,400 undocumented people have enrolled in MinnesotaCare. From whom, the Department of Human Services said in a statement, have filed 3,378 claims for service, costing Minnesota about $3.3 million as of April 1 during the first quarter. The state budget office projects the cost for the next four years would be around $200 million — or roughly half of the GOP estimate.

Under the expansion, many undocumented people receiving MinnesotaCare pay a monthly premium, similar to other residents who receive health care through the program. The premium is based on income and the number of family members in the household.

The federal government kicks in money to pay for MinnesotaCare, but not the portion for undocumented people.

They also have proposed bills to provide college financial aid to undocumented people as well.

So basically, it becomes a "fungible moneoy" problem with regards to federal spending. Where state leaders can move mney around so that they're not "technically" using federal dollars for the thing they're not supposed to on the books, but it's basically tantamount to the same thing.


For example: If you had $10 in your wallet, and I agreed to provide you with $10 for some food assistance, but said "this money I'm giving you is only for food, it can NOT be used for other non-essential items"

And you proceed to spend my $10 on the food, and the $10 you already had on scratch off lottery tickets, I've essentially just facilitated the lottery tickets (because you could've bought the $10 worth of food with the money you already had without me giving you anything)

Click to expand...

BPPLEE said:

It depends on if the person is still actively resisting. I personally wouldn't do it

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

....and they are also grabbing U.S. citizens based on their appearance and accent.

My wife, who is a naturalized citizen, should not have to be looking out for ICE patrols when she goes into the local grocery store because she is Hispanic and speaks with an accent. I actually went with her the last time, and stayed in the parking lot. I joked I was on ICE lookout....but I was only half joking.

Wake up citizens. This is not right.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Why shouldn't they?

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

When states and cities invite illegals to their states and cities and refuse to cooperate with rhe feds whose job it ia to remove illegals then how else are they supposed to find them?

A city arrests and illegal for rape. But there is no mechanism to for them to ascertain the persons legality and arw not allowed to know or ask anything, and even if they did find out they were not allowed to tell the feds, then how do the feds get this person out?

This whole mess is the fault of these sanctuary policies that are established to interfere and prevent ICE from doing their jobs. You do that and they will find another way.

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

It's sad to see Americans so casually dismiss their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

Click to expand...