this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
212 points (99.1% liked)

politics

22046 readers
3902 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
top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This is going to get a lot of ICE people shot and killed.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

A lot of people are going to get shot by both sides.

[–] ooterness@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I don't even think people know about the 4th amendment.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 29 points 15 hours ago

Remains unclear whether the Trump administration will apply the law in this way.

Uh gestures broadly around

Pretty certain we can assume that it will.

[–] techclothes@lemmy.world 20 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

If I saw ICE coming to my door as a minority, I would be shooting. There is no longer a gaurantee you will have a fair case before court, or even a court case at all.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 12 points 12 hours ago

They've forced children as young as 6 to defend themselves in court with no right to an attorney, and it's been going on for years. The right to counsel isn't applied to immigration cases. It's truly insane, kangaroo court shit.

If the interpretation that they don't need a warrant stands, it means that ICE could walk into anybody's home, abduct their child, accuse them of being an illegal immigrant, do a show trial, and then ship them off to Guantanamo Bay where no press is allowed. Or, for all we know, to Little St. James or anywhere else.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 7 points 12 hours ago

Getting turned into a puddle at home is better than a death camp.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 8 points 14 hours ago

If they "believe" a law gives them some right (to enter a home) then I "believe" I have the right to enter their body with a ballistic projectile.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 80 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We are one step away from requiring quarters to troops.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 27 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Once that line is crossed it's finally time to get serious!

[–] Nursery2787@lemmy.ml 11 points 17 hours ago

SCOTUS: Homeland security has presumptive immunity for quartering immigrant catchers in the homes of suspected illegals. We deny plantifs request because they should have contested their anlleged immigrant status with the department of state initially. Dismissed with prejudice.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 39 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Well if warrants are off the table now, I guess we just start shooting whenever?

Weird, but whatever. Okay.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago

Just start dropping hints of illegals at MAGA supporters in stand your ground states.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 34 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Why has no one bitch slapped this idiot and pointed out that there has been no declaration of war and the law in question cannot be legally invoked? Honestly, how does this clown keep getting away with this shit?

[–] PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world 42 points 18 hours ago

how does this clown keep getting away with this shit?

A severe case of Lack of Consequences is how.

[–] C45513@lemm.ee 12 points 15 hours ago

if law isn't being enforced, it effectively doesn't exist

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 27 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Never been a better time to end the person breaking into your house.

Best case: you kill a terrorist and get off on self defense.

Likely outcome: you eat a dozen bullets and die.

No defense outcome: you get a free flight to a concentration camp in a country you may or may not have ever been to, you suffer, then you die.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Don't forget to stock up on hollow points. Breaking their oath to the Constitution is going to have some repercussions

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 13 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Feds wear body armor. Hollow points greatly decrease penetration power.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 16 hours ago

checks instance name

So there was a show called The Unit. Decent show. Not great but lots of action. It has Dennis Haybert.

Anyway, there is an episode where they (the delta team) has to secure the president who was running away from a highly armored militia.

His words: head and groin

Again, the show is decent. Recommend a watch to those who are into shows like that.

This reply isn't related to this thread but just randomly came to mind.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Only if the shooter aims at the body

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You should also aim for the body (with your rifle) because, as a real person, your name isn't John Wick.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

what are you talking about. I maxed all the head shot perks.

[–] techclothes@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if a person with a mouse connected to a robotic arm with a gun would be good at getting head shots.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

need some open source project for a firmware to control aim a turret with a mouse.

Preferably a whole contraption that can be assembled with accessible parts

[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 22 points 19 hours ago

ICE is going to regret when those start protecting themselves in their own home.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 27 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Ha.

That's not how laws work.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago

For some reason, my ctrl+Z isn't working. Undo - I want to undo!

[–] Lemmist@lemm.ee 17 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Juridical laws aren't like physical laws. You can change them however you want. There is no any objective limitation.

So laws work the way the master wants them to.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 10 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Except this is written law, it's pretty clear in the constitution. If the state refuses to respect our inalienable rights then the citizens are left with few options on how to respond

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago

All rights are alienable if you don’t believe rights exist

[–] bishbosh@lemm.ee 2 points 16 hours ago

There have already been several rulings against the constitution for places within 100 miles of the border, it's never been more than a piece of paper and decorum.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 10 points 20 hours ago

Just like the Bible. Cherry pick and intentionally misinterpret to push an agenda.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Not really, I mean any Judge can impart context if either side raises the issue, all the way from the local up to federal. At the Federal level things get into constitutional law, and what exactly constitutes personal freedoms, and anybody subverting the constitution is open to criminal AND civil penalties. That's how it's supposed to work at least.

In reality, these assholes are going to try and use this against people before a judge can shoot it down (they can't preempt it, really). This is another test to try and see where things break, and what they can get away with.

They show up, sweep you away to some hidden prison before anyone can stop them, and before a judge can outright say it's unconstitutional (like it even needs to be fucking said), and by that time they've already done whatever they intended to do.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Well, sort of - the extreme end of that is the sovcit worldview.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 13 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 20 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

How can you know who is in the house it is until you've searched to make sure they don't have an underground railroad type hiding spot?

/s

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

Twisters gonna twist

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 12 points 19 hours ago

If you live within 100 miles of a border....yeah, probably.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

I've read that they also consider international airports "borders", but I can't find anything authoritative saying that. Still, wouldn't put it past them.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Trump administration lawyers have determined that an 18th-century wartime law the president has invoked to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang allows federal agents to enter homes without a warrant, according to people familiar with internal discussions.

His order took aim at Venezuelan citizens 14 or older who belong to the Tren de Aragua gang, and who are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents. “All such alien enemies, wherever found within any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are subject to summary apprehension,” the proclamation said.

Senior lawyers at the Justice Department view that language, combined with the historical use of the law, to mean that the government does not need a warrant to enter a home or premises to search for people believed to be members of that gang, according to two officials familiar with the new policy.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 17 hours ago

Wild that a lawyer would take "wherever found" to indicate you can try to find them wherever.