Crime? I concede that if someone is illegal and they get stopped by law enforcement then I understand if they need to be deported. They are, after all, here illegally. The veteran from my previous comment should not have been deported after having served our nation honorably, but that is a one-off.

My point is that we have people at the top levels of government and corporation who have associated with a known sex trafficker. We have crimes literally right in front of our faces. Why are we spending resources on building a secret police of masked thugs who are basically doing whatever they want however they want, to deport people hanging outside of Home Depot?

Again, what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we just looking for people to deport, or are we trying to reduce crime? If we are looking for people to deport, then they should just say that instead of pretending like they are going after violent criminals and gangbangers, but then deporting gardeners.

If we are trying to reduce crime, there's some obvious places to start, and it isn't at the local Home Depot.

> Crime? I concede that if someone is illegal and they get stopped by law enforcement then I understand if they need to be deported. They are, after all, here illegally.

I am not sure I understand your position. If someone in the country illegally, then unless they commit a crime, or stopped by law enforcement, they should not be deported?

> The veteran from my previous comment should not have been deported after having served our nation honorably, but that is a one-off.

I’ve read the story in your link, and something is off. The person in question came to the country legally (not clear what it means in terms of his immigration status — maybe he came on a tourist visa, and then overstayed? Student visa -> overstay/fall out of status?) in 1975. At some point served in the army, which again was possible during some periods of time between 1975 and 2007 (perhaps even later), honorably discharged. Then, after some questionable things (not necessarily crimes, circa 2007) something went sideways, and lead to order of removal in 2014. The guy is old, and from a humanitarian perspective, IMO, he should not get deported. I still do not understand why he did not naturalize, but it is irrelevant at the moment.

> My point is that we have people at the top levels of government and corporation who have associated with a known sex trafficker. We have crimes literally right in front of our faces. Why are we spending resources on building a secret police of masked thugs who are basically doing whatever they want however they want, to deport people hanging outside of Home Depot? > Again, what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we just looking for people to deport, or are we trying to reduce crime? If we are looking for people to deport, then they should just say that instead of pretending like they are going after violent criminals and gangbangers, but then deporting gardeners.

Why there should be a focus on only one? I mean, if you are doing an investigation into drug trafficking, make an arrest, and then discover that one of the arrestees is also committed another crime. Would you charge this person with the newly discovered crime, or not?

> If someone in the country illegally, then unless they commit a crime, or stopped by law enforcement, they should not be deported?

Sure, I can see why they should be deported. I don't think it's necessarily a good reason to be deported, but I concede that if you're illegal and get caught doing something you should not have done, then there's grounds for deportation. Like Al Capone got caught because he didn't do his taxes.

> from a humanitarian perspective, IMO, he should not get deported

That's interesting. Where do you draw the line?

> I mean, if you are doing an investigation into drug trafficking, make an arrest, and then discover that one of the arrestees is also committed another crime. Would you charge this person with the newly discovered crime, or not?

Sure, and there's tons of precedent for this (see Al Capone). But this isn't what's happening. ICE is not investigating crimes. There's purposely looking for people to deport, and employing filthy tactics to do this.

Again, if the tactics they're using causes US citizens to carry their own documentation, there's something seriously wrong.

> if you're illegal and get caught doing something you should not have done, then there's grounds for deportation.

So, the act of crossing the border without permission is fine?

> That's interesting. Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line in this particular case (and I have not spent time to learn more about his legal troubles, but assuming it was an honest mistake and he was careless w.r.t. hiring proper legal help to know implications on his immigration status) that this person served in the military and had a permanent residency that he lost due to a plea + his age, then yeah.

However, a random person crossing the border? No, they should be deported, and it does not matter if they are black, brown, or a tall Scandinavian blond.

> There's purposely looking for people to deport

Isn't it the whole purpose of the agency? Are there countries with functioning governments that have no ICE-like agency that is responsible to find and deport illegal immigrants?

> Again, if the tactics they're using causes US citizens to carry their own documentation, there's something seriously wrong.

I agree. That being said, I would think we have to examine how we got to this point, and I am not sure the answers and the conclusions would be good for both sides of the isle.

> So, the act of crossing the border without permission is fine?

Sure. If you're seeking asylum, why not go to the country that has a statue that says "send me your poor, huddled masses?"

> Isn't it the whole purpose of the agency? Are there countries with functioning governments that have no ICE-like agency that is responsible to find and deport illegal immigrants?

I can't answer that. But as a brown tourist to foreign nations I can say I've never ever been stopped and asked if I had my documents in those countries, except of course at the point of crossing (airport etc).

But as to the whole purpose of the agency? My question again is, what is the purpose of the agency? If the purpose is to just remove more illegals then I'd say it's not really doing a stellar job; Biden's administration did more deportations without resolving to scare tactics: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/trump-biden-immigrants...

But I pose to you this question — why not just add more resources to expedite the asylum process, rather than ruthlessly deporting and separating families and kids?