Immigration

brianlux

josevolution said:

Tim Simmons said:

No. As a liberal person I didn’t. Could reflect bad on Dems and I dont want them to lose the midterms. 

Yeah I see your point but by that logic I’ve already given the republicans the midterms with as many birds I’ve doled out 😂

I live in a red county with lots of rural gun toting yahoos, so I do it often but surreptitiously. My dashboard must think I totally hate it!  😂

Get_Right

Tim Simmons said:

Was just behind a guy with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker and he turned without using his turn signal. Awful. Dems try this crap in November they’ll be handing the midterms they should win over to the Rs.

The lack of turn signal use is an epidemic. I just yell "bad driver!" Maybe they should add that to their platforms. 

mickeyrat

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

That doesn’t appear to be accurate.
” Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp80ljjd5rwo

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

That doesn’t appear to be accurate.
” Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp80ljjd5rwo

and that meme doesnt suggest otherwise. you're inferring that assertion.

mickeyrat

gemini ai

can dhs areest or detain a us citizen?

answer

As of early 2026, the official policy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not have the legal authority to arrest or detain U.S. citizens for immigration purposes.
However, while U.S. citizens are legally exempt from immigration detention, interactions can still occur under specific circumstances. Here is a breakdown of current policies and the reality of how they are applied:
1. General Authority and Prohibitions
 * No Immigration Jurisdiction: ICE’s primary authority is the civil enforcement of immigration laws. Because U.S. citizens cannot be "removed" or "deported," ICE has no legal grounds to hold them in immigration custody.
 * Transfer of Custody: If a U.S. citizen is arrested by ICE on criminal charges (such as human trafficking or drug smuggling), policy requires them to be transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service or local law enforcement for prosecution rather than being held in an ICE detention facility.
 * Criminal Obstruction: DHS has stated that U.S. citizens who "actively obstruct" law enforcement operations (such as interfering with an arrest or assaulting an agent) may be arrested and prosecuted under federal or local criminal law.
2. Policies on Potential Citizenship Claims
DHS maintains specific directives (e.g., ICE Directive 16001.2) for situations where an individual encountered by agents claims to be a U.S. citizen:
 * Mandatory Investigation: If an individual claims U.S. citizenship, or if there is evidence (indicia) suggesting they might be a citizen, ICE personnel are required to investigate that claim immediately.
 * Factual Examination: This includes checking all available DHS data systems and other reasonable means to verify status.
 * Immediate Release: If an individual in ICE custody is confirmed to be a U.S. citizen, they must be released promptly.
3. Recent Developments (2025–2026)
With the passage of recent legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025) and new executive orders, enforcement activity has increased significantly.
 * "Encounter" vs. "Arrest": Agents are trained to ask "well-determined questions" to establish status during encounters. If citizenship is not immediately clear, a temporary detention may occur while the agent verifies identity.
 * Tribal IDs and Documentation: Recent guidance emphasizes that Tribal IDs and state-issued IDs are valid forms of identification to prove citizenship. However, advocates note that not all agents may be familiar with every form of valid ID, leading to potential "wrongful" temporary stops.
Summary Table: Rights and Realities
| Category | Policy / Reality |
|---|---|
| Legal Status | ICE cannot legally deport or hold U.S. citizens for immigration violations. |
| Common Errors | Wrongful detentions occasionally happen due to outdated databases, similar names (misidentification), or complex citizenship claims (e.g., birth abroad to U.S. parents). |
| Rights during Stop | You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. You should clearly state "I am a U.S. citizen." |
| Warrants | ICE generally needs a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) to enter private areas of a home or business, but can enter public spaces without one. |
Would you like me to look up the specific procedures for filing a complaint or a lawsuit if a U.S. citizen has been wrongfully detained?

follow up , can you link poicies directly from dhs?

answer

Below are the direct links and key excerpts from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the detention and arrest of U.S. citizens.
1. Primary Policy: ICE Directive 16001.2
This is the central governing document that dictates how ICE agents must handle individuals who claim to be U.S. citizens or show signs of being one.
 * Official Document: ICE Directive 16001.2: Investigating the Potential U.S. Citizenship of Individuals Encountered by ICE
 * Key Policy Point (Section 2): "As a matter of law, ICE cannot assert its civil immigration enforcement authority to arrest and/or detain a U.S. citizen."
 * Key Procedure (Section 5): It mandates that agents must "immediately and carefully" investigate any claim of U.S. citizenship and prohibits lodging a detainer against anyone with "probative evidence" of citizenship.
2. DHS Official Position on Enforcement Operations
In response to reports of wrongful arrests, DHS issued formal statements clarifying their operational limits regarding U.S. citizens.
 * DHS News Release: DHS Debunks False Reporting: DHS Does NOT Deport U.S. Citizens
 * Direct Quote: "ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens... our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability."
 * Exception Note: The policy clarifies that U.S. citizens can still be arrested if they "actively obstruct" law enforcement or commit other federal/local crimes unrelated to immigration status.
3. Immigration Detainers Policy
This policy explains the "Probable Cause" requirement needed before ICE can ask local jails to hold someone.
 * Official Page: ICE Policy on Immigration Detainers
 * Key Policy Point: ICE policy requires a finding of probable cause to believe a subject is a removable alien before a detainer can be issued. Since U.S. citizens are not removable, a detainer issued against one is a violation of this policy.
4. Congressional Records and Summaries
For a more detailed legal breakdown of how these policies are monitored by Congress, you can view the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports:
 * CRS Report: Immigration Arrests in the Interior of the United States: A Primer
 * Congressional Hearing Record: Acting Secretary Testimony on U.S. Citizens Detained (Includes ICE's formal answers to Congress regarding the protocol for releasing citizens).
Summary of Your Rights Based on These Policies:
 * No Obligation to Carry Papers: Under these policies, U.S. citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship while traveling within the U.S. interior.
 * Right to Investigation: If you are stopped, Directive 16001.2 grants you the right to an "expeditious investigation" of your status if you claim citizenship.
 * Immediate Release: Once citizenship is verified, the agency is policy-bound to release the individual immediately.

mickeyrat

and I know the nitpick, so just stop.

Lerxst1992

Tim Simmons said:

Was just behind a guy with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker and he turned without using his turn signal. Awful. Dems try this crap in November they’ll be handing the midterms they should win over to the Rs.

Why don’t you walk up to an armed officer and taunt them and see if you can get anyone killed, big boy? Let’s see if you make it to PJ35 big boy? Why don’t you stick to what actually happened instead of making crap up to support your one sided views, big boy? Go get yourself some lunch, big boy?

Of course this justifies nothing…of course Ice is a problem but the only thing extremist behavior advances is more extremist behavior. We can all thank maga for that. And the wokes. Rule #1…never taunt an armed officer, no matter what.

Of course when you shadow quote you took my primary concern out of the discussion. I understand why you don’t see both sides, her wife was using your tactics, which must be upsetting, big boy. 

JFC.

Halifax2TheMax

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

See? This is how far it’s come. We’re in the acceptance stage. Gearing up for the midterms because we know Repubs don’t have any policies that better lives to run on.

Enjoy your, general you, collapsed cities of Seattle, LA, NY and now, Minneapolis.

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Was just behind a guy with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker and he turned without using his turn signal. Awful. Dems try this crap in November they’ll be handing the midterms they should win over to the Rs.

Why don’t you walk up to an armed officer and taunt them and see if you can get anyone killed, big boy? Let’s see if you make it to PJ35 big boy? Why don’t you stick to what actually happened instead of making crap up to support your one sided views, big boy? Go get yourself some lunch, big boy?

Of course this justifies nothing…of course Ice is a problem but the only thing extremist behavior advances is more extremist behavior. We can all thank maga for that. And the wokes. Rule #1…never taunt an armed officer, no matter what.

Of course when you shadow quote you took my primary concern out of the discussion. I understand why you don’t see both sides, her wife was using your tactics, which must be upsetting, big boy. 

JFC.

the problem with the part I bolded is that you are putting the responsibility of not being murdered onto the victim. We should have higher standards for how officers of the law, not expecting higher standards only from the public. You are excusing, or normalizing, living in fear of law enforcement. Their motto is "serve and protect". Not "shut up or get shot". 

Your statement "of course ICE is a problem" should end there. There are not "buts" to that statement. 

HughFreakingDillon

You should be able to say anything you want to an armed officer without even the possibility of getting shot in the face for it. That's one of the first tenets of the US constitution. Normalizing being brutalized for not falling in line is not a far distance from being ok with authoritarianism. 

Halifax2TheMax

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Extremist behaviour = exercising your 1st amendment rights.

Because they “can” and “do”.

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Was just behind a guy with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker and he turned without using his turn signal. Awful. Dems try this crap in November they’ll be handing the midterms they should win over to the Rs.

Why don’t you walk up to an armed officer and taunt them and see if you can get anyone killed, big boy? Let’s see if you make it to PJ35 big boy? Why don’t you stick to what actually happened instead of making crap up to support your one sided views, big boy? Go get yourself some lunch, big boy?

Of course this justifies nothing…of course Ice is a problem but the only thing extremist behavior advances is more extremist behavior. We can all thank maga for that. And the wokes. Rule #1…never taunt an armed officer, no matter what.

Of course when you shadow quote you took my primary concern out of the discussion. I understand why you don’t see both sides, her wife was using your tactics, which must be upsetting, big boy. 

JFC.

the problem with the part I bolded is that you are putting the responsibility of not being murdered onto the victim. We should have higher standards for how officers of the law, not expecting higher standards only from the public. You are excusing, or normalizing, living in fear of law enforcement. Their motto is "serve and protect". Not "shut up or get shot". 

Your statement "of course ICE is a problem" should end there. There are not "buts" to that statement. 

No. I’m doing what I usually do here, balance the discussion. I did not put it on the victim, I stated a fact about how we should behave in the presence of a LEO, especially when they are conducting an active operation.  As much as we hate what they are doing we should never taunt and obstruct an armed officer 

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

You should be able to say anything you want to an armed officer without even the possibility of getting shot in the face for it. That's one of the first tenets of the US constitution. Normalizing being brutalized for not falling in line is not a far distance from being ok with authoritarianism. 

I put the bolded in Gemini (legal or safe), we can laugh about ai but it’s here and it’s not going away. Better than me typing it…

” In short: No. While the First Amendment provides broad protections for free speech, including the right to criticize or even be rude to the police, there is a significant difference between what is "legal" and what is "safe."

Interacting with an armed law enforcement officer involves navigating both legal boundaries and physical safety. Here is a breakdown of why saying "anything you want" can be dangerous or lead to legal trouble.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot be arrested solely for verbal criticism or profanity (e.g., City of Houston v. Hill), officers have broad discretion to arrest you for other related "conduct" charges if your speech escalates the situation:

• Disorderly Conduct: If your speech is accompanied by aggressive gestures or is loud enough to "disturb the peace," you can be arrested.

• Obstruction of Justice: If your talking interferes with their ability to conduct an investigation or perform their duties.

• Fighting Words: Speech that is intended to incite immediate physical violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

…

Her wife escalated the situation and got the officer to act in fear. What he did was horrific, but it’s absolutely stupid to incite an armed officer while your spouse is acting in a difficult to identify manner regarding using her vehicle as a weapon.

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

You should be able to say anything you want to an armed officer without even the possibility of getting shot in the face for it. That's one of the first tenets of the US constitution. Normalizing being brutalized for not falling in line is not a far distance from being ok with authoritarianism. 

I put the bolded in Gemini (legal or safe), we can laugh about ai but it’s here and it’s not going away. Better than me typing it…

” In short: No. While the First Amendment provides broad protections for free speech, including the right to criticize or even be rude to the police, there is a significant difference between what is "legal" and what is "safe."

Interacting with an armed law enforcement officer involves navigating both legal boundaries and physical safety. Here is a breakdown of why saying "anything you want" can be dangerous or lead to legal trouble.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot be arrested solely for verbal criticism or profanity (e.g., City of Houston v. Hill), officers have broad discretion to arrest you for other related "conduct" charges if your speech escalates the situation:

• Disorderly Conduct: If your speech is accompanied by aggressive gestures or is loud enough to "disturb the peace," you can be arrested.

• Obstruction of Justice: If your talking interferes with their ability to conduct an investigation or perform their duties.

• Fighting Words: Speech that is intended to incite immediate physical violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

…

Her wife escalated the situation and got the officer to act in fear. What he did was horrific, but it’s absolutely stupid to incite an armed officer while your spouse is acting in a difficult to identify manner regarding using her vehicle as a weapon.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

What kind of warped analysis is that?

”Go get lunch, big boy” is “threatening” speech? JFC is right.

Because they “can” and “do”.

When that pendulum swings, the hammer better come down. Hard.

Tim Simmons

tapping the sign

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

You should be able to say anything you want to an armed officer without even the possibility of getting shot in the face for it. That's one of the first tenets of the US constitution. Normalizing being brutalized for not falling in line is not a far distance from being ok with authoritarianism. 

I put the bolded in Gemini (legal or safe), we can laugh about ai but it’s here and it’s not going away. Better than me typing it…

” In short: No. While the First Amendment provides broad protections for free speech, including the right to criticize or even be rude to the police, there is a significant difference between what is "legal" and what is "safe."

Interacting with an armed law enforcement officer involves navigating both legal boundaries and physical safety. Here is a breakdown of why saying "anything you want" can be dangerous or lead to legal trouble.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot be arrested solely for verbal criticism or profanity (e.g., City of Houston v. Hill), officers have broad discretion to arrest you for other related "conduct" charges if your speech escalates the situation:

• Disorderly Conduct: If your speech is accompanied by aggressive gestures or is loud enough to "disturb the peace," you can be arrested.

• Obstruction of Justice: If your talking interferes with their ability to conduct an investigation or perform their duties.

• Fighting Words: Speech that is intended to incite immediate physical violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

…

Her wife escalated the situation and got the officer to act in fear. What he did was horrific, but it’s absolutely stupid to incite an armed officer while your spouse is acting in a difficult to identify manner regarding using her vehicle as a weapon.

"got the officer to act in fear". again, victim blaming. all of what you say here is putting the blame on the victims. they did nothing but make some cheap barbs at these douchebags. if they are that soft, they shouldn't be officers of the law, much less be given a firearm. 

HughFreakingDillon

the clear, balance, objective truth is that she was driving away. there are laws against what the officer did, putting himself in front of the vehicle so he had plausible deniability to escalate it. look it up. 

how many people in fear for their life shoot two more times AFTER the danger is over, and then walk over and say "fucking bitch". This dude was looking for an excuse to escalate it. I hope he rots in prison. 

Tim Simmons

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

You should be able to say anything you want to an armed officer without even the possibility of getting shot in the face for it. That's one of the first tenets of the US constitution. Normalizing being brutalized for not falling in line is not a far distance from being ok with authoritarianism. 

I put the bolded in Gemini (legal or safe), we can laugh about ai but it’s here and it’s not going away. Better than me typing it…

” In short: No. While the First Amendment provides broad protections for free speech, including the right to criticize or even be rude to the police, there is a significant difference between what is "legal" and what is "safe."

Interacting with an armed law enforcement officer involves navigating both legal boundaries and physical safety. Here is a breakdown of why saying "anything you want" can be dangerous or lead to legal trouble.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot be arrested solely for verbal criticism or profanity (e.g., City of Houston v. Hill), officers have broad discretion to arrest you for other related "conduct" charges if your speech escalates the situation:

• Disorderly Conduct: If your speech is accompanied by aggressive gestures or is loud enough to "disturb the peace," you can be arrested.

• Obstruction of Justice: If your talking interferes with their ability to conduct an investigation or perform their duties.

• Fighting Words: Speech that is intended to incite immediate physical violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

…

Her wife escalated the situation and got the officer to act in fear. What he did was horrific, but it’s absolutely stupid to incite an armed officer while your spouse is acting in a difficult to identify manner regarding using her vehicle as a weapon.

what if you included the "without even the possibility of getting shot" in your AI query? does your argument fall apart then?

Get_Right

I will not comment on the legality of the lethal force used. But I am constantly amazed by how people have total disregard for law enforcement instructions and encounters. Not just ICE. Take it too far and it will not end well for you. And that applies to US citizens as well. If she stopped the SUV would we be talking about lethal force? 

Halifax2TheMax

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Just “comply” with unlawful orders. Because they “can” and “do”.

HughFreakingDillon

Get_Right said:

I will not comment on the legality of the lethal force used. But I am constantly amazed by how people have total disregard for law enforcement instructions and encounters. Not just ICE. Take it too far and it will not end well for you. And that applies to US citizens as well. If she stopped the SUV would we be talking about lethal force? 

they were illegally trying to enter her vehicle. they have no jurisdiction over US citizens.