to block state investigators from participating in the probe.
The investigation into a deadly shooting in Minneapolis involving an ICE officer will now solely be led by the FBI, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) will no longer have access to case materials.
Well, I now fully expect the ICE officer to be cleared which will feed into conspiracy theories whether based in fact or not. This development certainly increases US citizen’s distrust of the federal government.
Yes, and while murder is a state crime, the feds can always take over a case with certain hooks. This admin likes calling any and everything it dislikes domestic terrorism so that’s what looks to be the hook in this case.
Pete
This is already happening w immigration laws in some cities. They do not cooperate w ICE officers. Also in Missouri law was passed restricting local cooperation w feds enforcing gun laws.
Selective enforcement is a problem.
Law abiding citizens are supposed to obey the law. Those who dislike the law are free to demonstrate (peacefully) and work to change the law.
Gridlock in Congress makes change difficult. Inability to compromise causes conflict. This is one aspect of that conflict.
Of course, the problem in the U.S. at the moment is that the people in charge of enforcing the law have no actual interest in the law and break it regularly with minimal consequences.
The extraordinarily massive and spontaneous turnout of protestors the night of the murder in freezing rains, and much larger crowds today show that ICE’s stomping on citizens’ rights is getting some needed pushback.
The 2024 election seemed to endorse better border controls. That included removal of illegals w criminal records. Support for that much seemed to be strong.
The difficulties expected w mass deportations were anticipated. Certainly no surprise. Will it play in Peoria? I think yes.
Mass deportations are disruptive. To the extent it causes illegals to decide to return to their country voluntarily, good.
Those who favor open borders are strongly opposed to all ICE efforts. They are out there en mass. Where is Peoria on this? Probably continues to support deportation of illegals at some moderate levels.
What about long term illegals paying taxes and obeying the law? Should citizenship be possible?
When will Congress get its act together on immigration reform?
There is no one that favors open borders; that is simply wrong! And I’m not opposed to ICE efforts; I’m opposed to the existence of ICE in any form! The guy in charge has his brown shirts!
JimA
Besides John and Yoko, who favors open borders?
I don’t know about “open” borders but under Joe and Kamala the southern border was certainly porous.
Here on the Fool I remember btresist arguing for open borders back on the Atheist’s Board.
In his new [2024] book The Case for Open Borders, John Washington asks what it would look like if the world went in the opposite direction and embraced the idea of open borders. Washington envisions a future where all borders are open to free movement without reliance on identity documents or citizen affiliation while others are free to remain in place.
Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration Bryan Caplan, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, makes the radical pro-immigration argument that others don’t. In his view, immigration should be essentially unlimited.
Et cetera.
DB2
You may have missed this, but there was a major bipartisan effort on immigration reform under Biden. The bill was known as the Bipartisan Border Security Bill. Donald decided to oppose it and the Republicans caved.
No more or less than any other administration. Don’t be so obtuse.
JimA
Jim, just look at the numbers.
It was a certain obtuseness/denial by the D’s on the border that cost them the election in 2024. (Well, that and inflation.)
DB2
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) officially supports “open borders”.
DB2
I’m not sure I understand. If there were ‘open borders’ wouldn’t the number of encounters drop to Zero? More people wanting to get in to the country does not mean ‘open borders’. Every time someone tries to fix the process, a particular side says no as it would take away a talking point.
JimA
Well, I had to look them up. But I don’t see anything on their website showing a desire for open borders. It could be hidden. But in looking over the site I’m pretty much in agreement with many of their viewpoints.
JimA
Yes. They had a secure border deal. Trump ordered the Republicans to scotch the deal so that he could use it as a campaign issue. He was counting on our collective ignorance and stupidity to fall for it. He was right, as proven, yet again, by posters on this board.
I think few would deny that border control was a Biden issue. Personally I think he was moderate on the subject, but to get bills passed in Congress he needed the support of the liberal wing of the party. That is the home of open borders people.
