172
Homeland Security removes age limits for ICE recruits to boost hiring for Trump deportations
(federalnewsnetwork.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
172 points (98.9% liked)
News
31456 readers
4604 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You need secret clearance, which means they will go through your social media and interview people you know, including prior employers and schools. There is also a polygraph.
Your post would be disqualifying.
If you wanted to infiltrate, you would have had to plan to do so for many years.
Oh, I know I'm disqualified. But I also know that there are people who aren't.
Anyone who would be so minded as to act in a way that undermines or is in direct opposition has certainly disqualified themselves on social media and in reputation.
They would need a clean or blatantly pro Trump social media profile and multiple people to vouch for them that are the same.
Even once they get in, they would still have to follow orders and they would be the one contributing to what they hate directly or they would be fired and/or imprisoned.
Seriously, the only way to get into a position to be able to do anything would have to decide to flip or being playing a long game that they only just recently found out about.
It's a big country with a lot of people in it.
Pretty sure polygraph is for TS, not S
Poly is standard for LEOs, secret clearance does include poly.
No it doesn't. I had one.
Same. Mine is within the last 5 ish years, too; i didn't even get contacted beyond telling me i had my interim.
I knew a few people with TS and it really depended on the job, (because need to know) how extreme it got but never, not once, did I ever hear about someone getting a polygraph for a TS or secret clearance. And granted my only experience was the military. It may be different for three letter agencies, but I find that unlikely given my experience with how the government works. Basically if you don't have any glaring red flags, you got it. That being said, that was before this administration. I hear there's a loyalty test now but I can't verify that.
Like, don’t tell them your lemmy username?
If you don't use any other social media or haven't posted anything disqualifying, then not telling them about your Lemmy account would help your odds.
The poly and/or reference interviews would not work out for you anyways.
I've had an interview performed a while back and answered questions for someone else's interview. At least in the 00s there was really only so much they could do. They talk to people you list and incidental relationships like neighbors. If you either don't rant to those people or those people aren't inclined to rat you out, there's not much risk there.
The questions were surface level and the time for investigation was limited. I think they're mostly looking for someone to volunteer that the subject seems questionable. Poly was more of a crap shoot (I know some people who had to take it multiple times), but as far as I remember the questions weren't personalized and weren't political. Though who knows what sort of loyalty questions they've added for the gestapo applicants.
Mind you, all this was done right after college, where I'd talked and posted about politics openly, went to anti Iraq war protests organized by communists (I didn't actually know that at the time), and had a Rage Against the Machine bumper sticker. Whether they knew much of that, I don't know, but at least back then the human limitations on how much investigation they could do and how aggressive they could be with rejections were pretty apparent.
I had a secret clearance in my army days, 02-08. There was no polygraph at all.
Did they interview people? If I'm remembering correctly, I think the interviews only came for TS, and the polys were for special compartments. They didn't have remotely the personnel to apply the Full Monty for everyone who needed a clearance.
TV makes it seem like clearances are big deals only for the most patriotic special agents, but in reality it's tons of military personnel and civilian contractors and they take forever and a day to actually happen. And then every year you take training that is so easy it seems designed to make sure no one can fail.
To other readers, don't get a security clearance if it's optional, it mostly just sucks.
Basically they did a background check, looking for criminal records and credit report, I had to give references, they contacted one of the three I gave, and I guess they did a background check on the person they contacted, but I never took a polygraph. But being 18, I had no criminal record and essentially no credit at all.
Were you interviewing for a federal law enforcement agency or a local? Were you going to receive secret clearance?
Things have changed all the same.
Not law enforcement, but I think it might have even been with DHS. It was a long time ago. Interviews were for higher than secret, and polys were for higher still.
I'm kind of surprised they're still doing polys actually. They seemed like junk science back then, as evidenced by the people who had to take them multiple times. It's not like their lives changed when they eventually passed, just the readings/interpretation did.