You Can't Refuse To Be Scanned by ICE's Facial Recognition App, DHS Document Says (404media.co) 202
An anonymous reader shares a report: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not let people decline to be scanned by its new facial recognition app, which the agency uses to verify a person's identity and their immigration status, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document obtained by 404 Media. The document also says any face photos taken by the app, called Mobile Fortify, will be stored for 15 years, including those of U.S. citizens.
The document provides new details about the technology behind Mobile Fortify, how the data it collects is processed and stored, and DHS's rationale for using it. On Wednesday 404 Media reported that both ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are scanning peoples' faces in the streets to verify citizenship.
"ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection," the document, called a Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA), says. A PTA is a document that DHS creates in the process of deploying new technology or updating existing capabilities. It is supposed to be used by DHS's internal privacy offices to determine and describe the privacy risks of a certain piece of tech. "CBP and ICE Privacy are jointly submitting this new mobile app PTA for the ICE Mobile Fortify Mobile App (Mobile Fortify app), a mobile application developed by CBP and made accessible to ICE agents and officers operating in the field," the document, dated February, reads. 404 Media obtained the document (which you can see here) via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with CBP.
The document provides new details about the technology behind Mobile Fortify, how the data it collects is processed and stored, and DHS's rationale for using it. On Wednesday 404 Media reported that both ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are scanning peoples' faces in the streets to verify citizenship.
"ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection," the document, called a Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA), says. A PTA is a document that DHS creates in the process of deploying new technology or updating existing capabilities. It is supposed to be used by DHS's internal privacy offices to determine and describe the privacy risks of a certain piece of tech. "CBP and ICE Privacy are jointly submitting this new mobile app PTA for the ICE Mobile Fortify Mobile App (Mobile Fortify app), a mobile application developed by CBP and made accessible to ICE agents and officers operating in the field," the document, dated February, reads. 404 Media obtained the document (which you can see here) via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with CBP.
Who'd have thunk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Who'd have thunk? (Score:3, Insightful)
That constitution originally didn't give the vote to anyone but landed white males and today it says anyone convicted of a crime can be enslaved. It does not say what you think it says and it never did.
Re: Who'd have thunk? (Score:4, Informative)
That constitution originally didn't give the vote to anyone but landed white males
The US constitution didn't give the vote to anyone. Voting rights were determined by states and you are correct they mostly only gave the vote to free males often with a property requirement. But black males who met those qualifications were also eligible to vote in some states. In fact, some women with property were initially allowed to vote.
today it says anyone convicted of a crime can be enslaved
Not really. People convicted of a crime are not owned by anyone and neither are their offspring. They can be forced to work while in prison. On the other hand, at the time the constitution was adopted, apprentices were indentured to their "master" and could be forced to work. Runaway apprentices would be captured and returned to their master. The only real difference between an apprentice and a slave was that it was not a lifetime bondage and it wasn't inherited by their offspring. But that is a pretty significant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because what I said is true. It looks like you're whole problem is that you're so worried about seeming right that you're refusing to think through the difference between a premise and an intention.
The written premise behind the our constitution is a principle: the government exists to secure "unalienable rights." The intention, at the time, was that those rights would only go to white male land owners. But that just reveals the contradiction that I was pointing out in the first place: Logically, as well as
Re: (Score:3)
The point of my original observation is that it is a shame that we have an entire constitution based on the premise that we have certain unalienable rights
Yes, and I already explained why that was never the premise. You're judging the document based on some PR contained within it which was a blatant lie. We know it was a lie because of the rest of the document. This is exactly like judging by actions vs stated intent. IDGAF what people say, only what they do. And what you are doing right now is chiding me for not understanding your post when I understand perfectly well that it means that you don't understand the intent of the constitution. It wasn't what was
Can't? (Score:2)
If it were, we'd all be ####ed a million ways to doomsday.
(ianal, but I don't have to be for something this obviously egregious.)
Re:Can't? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is out of control.
Re: Can't? (Score:3, Informative)
Getting arrested only requires that a cop claims it has reason to believe you have committed a misdemeanor. That's not a meaningful standard.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a meaningful standard.
Probable cause is a meaningful standard. Otherwise all police would operate like ICE,stopping, anyone they like, frisking and demanding proof of legal status.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting requested requires a certain threshold of suspicion. ICE does not. If they CHOOSE to stop you, they scan your face.
If they don't have probable cause of a crime then this is unconstitutional as they are detaining someone for the duration of the face scan and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. Of course since the Supreme Court recently ruled that being brown and speaking Spanish is probable cause for being an illegal immigrant that's not hard for them to get around for a lot of folks.
I feel bad for all the American citizens who will be harassed by the cops after that ruling.
Re:Can't? (Score:4, Informative)
Its not cops. Its ICE. And they already have been arresting and beating up on dark skinned Americans. There's tons of proof of it, I just can't be arsed to collect it at the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not cops. Its ICE
A differentiation without meaning in this context. The 4th amendment applies to all government, not just the police. This really should be challenged and found to be unconstitutional although that ruling I mentioned above shows our conservative Supreme Court doesn't seem to care much about the 4th amendment so who knows where such a thing would go.
And they already have been arresting and beating up on dark skinned Americans.
Yeah, I shouldn't have written that in the future tense. I know it's already been happening, I just was sloppy with my writing.
Re: Can't? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a hell of a difference in context - cops are not federal agents. if a citizen brings a civil rights case against a police department they do this in a federal court - the prosecutor does not work for the same people that may be held responsible for the damage. Thats how you get consent decrees, leadership changes, etc.
Those cases can be career ending for police leadership, and career making for the prosecutors - you can figure out the incentives and deterrents that flow down to the chain.
ICE are federal agents - they are not DOJ but work closely enough, and follow the directives of the same executive branch. Unless the agencies have both disparate policies and a lot of independence (not the case today), a zealous prosecution will be damaging and embarrassing for the executive branch in general.
No prosecutor is going to touch that without clear support from the top. Agency leadership is not going to worry about that risk if they're getting the go ahead from the top of the branch. No individual agent will see the risk of "crossing the line" ending his career, or their boss and their bosses' boss.
For a lot of people those deterrents had gone too far, enforcement had their hands tied, etc. so they don't see this as a bad thing. But we have seen what happens in towns and cities when you give local police "bonuses" and incentives for aggressive enforcement without checks.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal search applies here (Score:3)
ICE is basically violating a fundamental problem of violating the very idea of illegal search. There has to be probable cause to search, or to try to verify the identity of people, and race/ethnic group is not an acceptable reason to search someone. If anything, this is more "government overreach" and the push to allow ANYONE claiming to work for the government to be able to do whatever they want.
I really am waiting for states and local governments to tell ICE that they are not welcome, and to arrest anyone from ICE who violates the rights of people within their area of control. If ICE were to come into my home without my permission, then the police should be required by law to arrest them for illegal entry into my home and charge them with breaking and entering. ICE must be held to the same standards as police officers, complete with the need for a warrant, probable cause, and if they use excessive force, possible arrest and prison time for those who are guilty.
Re:Illegal search applies here (Score:4, Insightful)
They're mostly pulling random people off the streets so they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as Trump is president.
I don't think folks would realize this but every single institution designed to protect you has broken down. The last and final one was the voters and they decided cheap eggs and sticking it was more important than basic civil rights and a functional economy.
To be fair we had a hell of a lot of voter suppression and a fuck ton of propaganda. I watched a couple dozen journalists get dog walked by corporate media for daring criticize King Trump. It was so bad we invented a new word. Sane washing
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Illegal search applies here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll just be tossed in with the rest of them.
American *citizens*, you know, full blooded Americans - are getting arrested by ICE. It was even recently decided citizens may sue ICE for illegal detainment after one kept getting arrested and held for a week at a time at a detention facility.
Even worse, ICE isn't following ID rules - the law requires all government workers have ID. Sure maybe they don't want to ID themselves, but they should be wearing ID numbers. It's why police have badge numbers they
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, laws don't apply to the branch that controls the military because those laws can't be realistically enforced. The past 250 years have been great because our leaders largely acted in good faith, but human history shows us that that behavior is the exception, and the norm is closer to Game of Thrones.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Immigrants are subject to identification requirements whenever/wherever, period.
Back up just a bit. How do you know the random person on the street is an immigrant?
Illegal immigrants have no constitutional protections or rights.
You are incorrect. I asked Grok (the non woke AI) for clarification on this issue.
Undocumented immigrants enjoy many of the same fundamental rights as citizens in everyday and legal contexts:
Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments): Right to a fair hearing before deprivation of liberty, including in deportation proceedings. They cannot be deported without notice and an opportunity to contest removal. However, immigratio
Re:Illegal search applies here (Score:5, Informative)
Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that undocumented children have a right to public K-12 education under the Equal Protection Clause, rejecting Texas's attempt to deny it. The Court noted that undocumented immigrants are "persons" entitled to constitutional protections.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): Extended equal protection to non-citizens, including those unlawfully present.
Wong Wing v. United States (1896): Undocumented immigrants cannot be subjected to punishment (e.g., hard labor) without a judicial trial; they are entitled to due process in criminal cases.
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): Limits indefinite detention of deportable non-citizens; due process requires release if removal is not foreseeable.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a crime and there was a security camera, then fair use would allow that random, "compare picture of the person who committed the crime to people in the area". Without that, and without looking for a specific person who is known to have committed a crime, the GOVERNMENT is not allowed to just look for you and take your picture. That falls under illegal search and seizure. It is also against all rules of law enforcement to racially profile people, so you can't say, "everyone who looks non-wh
Re:Illegal search applies here (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand the law or the reality.
Public is public. The government can face-scan you just like I can take a picture of you.
Yes and no. The legality depends on what they do with the data. If someone takes pictures of you for a scrapbook, sure, it's fine.
If someone uses them in artwork, that's probably fine.
If someone uses them for primarily commercial purposes, that's a violation of your right to privacy, and illegal.
And there are a *lot* of things that private citizens can do, but government can't. Why? Because the government has disproportionate amounts of power over you, and so our laws and our constitution deliberately shackle the government to limit the harm it can do.
Immigrants are subject to identification requirements whenever/wherever, period.
Illegal immigrants have no constitutional protections or rights.
First, that's not true. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says anything about "citizens" or "lawfully present persons". The Constitution limits what the government can do. People have constitutional rights whether then are citizens or legal or undocumented immigrants.
For that matter, people have constitutional rights whether they are in the United States or Cambodia. This is not to say that the Cambodian government has to respect those rights, but rather that with only a few explicit exceptions, the U.S. government still has to respect the constitution even when not operating on U.S. soil. It cannot, for example, require U.S. citizens in other countries to quarter troops.
A previous administration attempted to force asylum seekers to wait their turn for a hearing outside the country.
Which is really, really stupid. It just makes them some other country's problem, and no other country should be willing to put up with it.
This is pretty much the same in every country, and for those that didn't have those rules - well you can see how well that's worked out.
Very few countries do that, actually. A lot of countries do detain them, but not for months or years. The real problem is that the U.S. legal system is horrifically slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Slower, when the administration fires a bunch of immigration judges.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have been pretty mixed about Guantanamo. They agreed with me in Boumediene v. Bush [wikipedia.org]. But then, the farther the court swung to the right, the more bats**t the rulings became, and the more they buried their heads in the sand to avoid following the law.
Anyway, I think the correct argument to make would be that if they are not guaranteed due process, then they must not be criminals subject to prosecution, and must instead be P.O.W.s, which means they are subject to release at the end of the hostili
Re: (Score:2)
A previous administration attempted to force asylum seekers to wait their turn for a hearing outside the country.
This is pretty much the same in every country, and for those that didn't have those rules - well you can see how well that's worked out.
Per the the 1951 Refugee Convention and later 1967 amendment which the US is a signatory to refugees have the rights to:
* not be expelled without due process
* not get punished for irregular entry
* gainful employment
* freedom of movement within the country
* access to the justice system
* be issued travel documents
Remain in Mexico and other restrictions on the entry of refugees and asylum seekers is illegal. Trying to get around and curtail these rights is why there are all these murderous campaigns in UK, It
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal immigrants have no constitutional protections or rights.
Wrong. The constitution does not require a VISA. At least not until the Supreme Court decides they aren't persons.
Don't Tread On Me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone driving around with the Gadsden flag on your truck or perhaps being flown in your yard, please speak up! This is the moment you've been warning us about.
Armed federal agents wearing masks who refuse to identify themselves are violating rights and committing crimes with impunity. They don't drive vehicles with federal plates but instead use rented vans. They grab people from their place of employment and send them off to camps.
Re:Don't Tread On Me! (Score:5, Insightful)
> Armed federal agents wearing masks who refuse to identify themselves
It would not surprise me if some of these goons have the "Don't tread on me" flags on their private vehicles. They themselves are the threat they were warning us about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And next time you'll vote for the same people.
Hm (Score:2)
What will the deportation force of 42,000, which is 4x more agents than the FBI has (not including the 3000 diverted agents), https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-... [cato.org] do when they run out of farmers and restaurant workers to deport? Will they go back to trying to find violent criminals?
Also, do we really want to deport people who have stayed in the US for a long period without harmful actions (doing work isn't harm, I mean, does *your* work harm?)? It seems unnecessarily cruel to demand a pound of flesh and uproo
Re:Hm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government really was concerned about illegal labor then why do the people who sign the illegal labor paychecks not get arrested?
Re: (Score:3)
I won't play the game (Score:2)
I just won't go to the US any more. Problem solved. If I want to go somewhere warm in winter, Portugal or Spain are nice. Or St. Maarten. Or any number of other places.
Meta post here (Score:2, Offtopic)
One of the major problems is that anyone who voted to give away their rights in order to kick out immigrants or just plain be mean to them isn't going to read this thread.
We're all in information silos and there is insane amounts of lies and misinformation and propaganda out there designed to benefit the billionaires who bought the entire American Media over the last 50 years.
But what gets me is people who seek out
Re: Meta post here (Score:2)
"anyone who voted to give away their rights in order to kick out immigrants or just plain be mean to them isn't going to read this thread."
Yes, they will. They will be proud to be hurting the people they are hurting and they have zero awareness that they will get a turn as well. Then they will mock you and accuse you of being a troll, a bot, or both, and without any irony whatsoever. How long have you been here? You should know how these reprobates work by now.
Not a Problem For Me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's congress on this? (Score:2)
Where on earth is congress?
My understanding is that this is, unfortunately, probably technically allowed in the absence of a federal law saying that it's not. Or, at the very least, the current Supreme Court certainly wouldn't shut down the behavior. It seems like such a law would enjoy support from a wide enough cast of characters (the left, because "stick it to ICE" and the libertarian right because of the obvious infringement on personal liberty) that it should have enough support to pass.
If we don'
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is complicit because they allow it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where's congress on this? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Where on earth is congress?"
Adjourned by Trump's little Johnson to avoid swearing in Adelita Grijalva because she's the last vote needed to force the release of the Epstein files which were previously sealed by a judge so that the Democrats couldn't release them when they controlled the government, because maggots love pedos.
Anyone blaming the shutdown on anything else has not just lost the plot, they forgot what was happening last fucking week, and proven that they are mentally incompetent to say anything of value on the subject. And/or, of course, that their systems should be checked for CP.
CV Dazzle (Score:2)
What you need is a different look everyday.
https://adam.harvey.studio/cvd... [adam.harvey.studio]
This comment section is clearly going to be civil (Score:3)
If you're inside the country, unless you're doing something wrong, they have no right to simply track you within a database for 15 years? This right is enjoyed by both citizens and non-citizens alike.
Now, what they DO have a right to do is obtain warrants for individuals that they have documented of violating the law or suspected of violating the law. Signed by a judge.
Walking up to you with a cell phone camera and biometrically identifying you is not even close to something they should have the power to do, and when the Democrats regain power should shut this down as soon as possible.
It's actually worse (Score:2)
Official policy is that the result of the facial scan trumps (sorry) any and all contradictory evidence, including green cards, passports and even birth certificates.
So, if the app mis-identifies you - which happens quite often to non-whites - you're getting detained and deported without any due process.
Joseph Heller foresaw this (Score:5, Informative)
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?""Catch-22."
OK, fine (Score:2)
Go ahead and snap my picture [tmdb.org].
Brazil (Score:3)
Mr Tuttle? [imdb.com]
Same at shopping malls (Score:3)
Nobody really thinks about it, and it's possibly offtopic, but permission to scan a persons face is already a battle lost. There is no practical opt out option.
Re: (Score:3)
Dept of Government Efficiency needs to vastly increase their staff to investigate all the government inefficiencies.
Re:What's the point of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out that was just the "Department of Shutting Down Programs Conservatives Don't Care About"
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee this data is being monetized somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
More discussion sources [Re:seriously just stop.] (Score:4, Informative)
Discussion by Futurism: https://futurism.com/artificia... [futurism.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All they can do is attack the messenger because the message challenges their beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone is okay with tracking (Score:5, Insightful)
For most of my life, Republicans have been warning about the dangers of government overreach and for all of that time I'd felt that their claims were overstated or far-fetched. It seems they're out to prove me wrong by becoming everything they claimed to be against.
Haven't you noticed? That's their pattern. They accuse the Democrats of wanting to do something bad because it's what they would do if they were in power. And when they get power, they do it. Want to know the most heinous things the Republicans want to do? Just look at what they accuse Democrats of doing, and you have your answer.
The number of times this has happened even in the last year or two should have been enough to make the pattern obvious to a casual observer. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, in the real world, Biden's FBI was busted [nypost.com] conducting fishing expeditions against Republicans. Nixon got impeached for less.
Surely you're joking. Nixon had his election staffers break into the competing party headquarters.
Under Biden, the FBI, as part of an active criminal investigation into an attempted coup, looked at the phone records of sitting members of the government to see who they called and who called them and when.
No, Nixon did not get impeached for "much less".
Re: Everyone is okay with tracking (Score:3)
Technically, Nixon resigned before he could get impeached.
Re: (Score:2)
For most of my life, Republicans have been warning about the dangers of government overreach.
Those Republicans are mostly dead. Unless it costs them money.
Re: (Score:2)
I know many people like you. Intelligent nerds, plenty of skills - yet lacking in common sense.
You ARE being tracked. Countless agencies know who you are. And, ironically - you and others like you are probably on more lists and being tracked more closely than the rest of us. The very fact you have a tiny digital footprint actually brings attention to you.
I applaud your beliefs and efforts, but it just ain't working out like you think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that they are aware of it, but that does not mean that they just have to automatically surrender to each new indignity. That's the problem with the slippery slope/boiling frog, whatever you want to call it. People basically reach the point where they say that it has gone so far and it is so inevitable that there's no point in complaining or putting up even token resistance. Meanwhile, the people pushing this stuff look and say that no-one is complaining or resisting, so they must be fin
Re: Everyone is okay with tracking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And before you scream "you're tracked already" : My cars are old enough they don't have permanent cell modems in them. My phone runs Lineage without Gapps or microG (Yes, the ISP still tracks and sells my location data. I know. Nothing I can do about that). I built my own Linux router. I run my own e-mail. I pump all my SMS over XMPP using jmp.chat.
I know a few people who do all this stuff and more. So let me fix that for you: "I take a perverse pride in jumping through lots of hoops to avoid a few overt tracking methods, but any occupant of a first-world country who doesn't do all their business in gold and harvested human organs has a huge tracking footprint that can't be avoided, so it's all really just to make me feel better. I know that any government actor who wants to find out about me can do so with minimal effort, so really this is just an ex
Re: (Score:2)
wait, which restaurants require an ID scan??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's uncommon enough that I've never encountered such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Everyone is okay with tracking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always use a fake ID.
Re:They already have my face (Score:4, Interesting)
And fingerprints. And social security. And DOB.
So, your basic argument is that if they infringe some of your privacy rights, they should be able to infringe all of them? OK.
And if someone somewhere who bears and uncanny resemblance to me robs a bank or steals christmas, that photo will be everywhere and I'm pretty sure I'll at least get a visit from the feds even if I don't go through customs.
So, you're saying that if they have probably cause to pick you up, then they should also be allowed to pick you up without probable cause. OK.
Re:They already have my face (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh for fuck's sake, you can just come right out and say it at this point. You're probably not going to be scanned by ICE because you're white, right? This doesn't affect you because they're not going after people who look like their idea of an American. Basically, if you look like you'd be right at home on the Department of Labor propaganda photos [ajc.com], ICE isn't going to bother you unless you're bothering them.
If ICE actually was going around doing their digital version of "papers, please" to white people - you'd be furious about it.
Re: (Score:2)
If ICE actually was going around doing their digital version of "papers, please" to white people - you'd be furious about it.
Not if they only did it in poor neighborhoods and to people doing manual labor. White privilege is an immunity only for people with money.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had to be fingerprinted so many times and provide photos that I've lost count. Every time I apply for a state professional license, I'm fingerprinted, undergo an FBI background check, my picture is submitted, and I'm another entry in a database. Passport? Same thing. Driver's license? Almost as bad but no fingerprints. When I go to the grocery store around here I'm on security cameras and they are very upfront and in-your-face about making sure you know that they're using facial recognition. Ever go to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good grief child, read the decision and stop spewing stupidity.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You and Kavanaugh must be in the same ivory tower.
What is actually happening:
"We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They've Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days."
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring reality in both the demographics of most illegal immigrants, hyperbolic reporting, and the overall very low rate of incidence of citizens being detained for *immigration* issues.
Note that your own (vague, and deliberately misrepresentational) article obliquely notes that 130 of that 170 citizens were detained after interfering, that leaves just 40 out of tens of thousands - and the government must address and be held responsible for those errors and alleged abuses - but that's hardly jack-b
Re: (Score:3)
They're talking about the de facto decision, not the de jurem one. It's honestly hard to call many of the Supreme court decisions lately de jurem, even thought hey officially are. That's because they don't need to actually decide any matters of law. Instead, they just take cases on their emergency docket over decisions issued by lower court judges. They don't override the actual decisions, they just nullify the corrective actions the judges have taken. That means that the lower court judges ruling still sta
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing stupid about it. You can be stopped by law enforcement based on what language you speak.
https://www.newsweek.com/spani... [newsweek.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"I like liberal democracy"
Votes and supports that party dismantling liberal democracy
You don't deserve a serious response because you are not serious people.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Well one that didn't happen, those are requirements to get a grant. Also as opposed to "endorse conservatives values or lose your research grant"? Clown shit. Stop it.
2. Oh ok smart guy, how do we test for immunity? Every worker has to get an antigen blood work now? Go ahead and fund that on a mass scale. Also when you fail you have to take the vaccine anyways. Not serious.
3. There are not hate speech laws in America. You can actually read court cases and the Constitution you know, you don;t have to
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration is already doing this. People in elected office are getting kidnapped by ICE because the politicians are doing their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pretty soon when they disappear citizens (Score:2)
Meanwhile in this country when you tell people we provided critical war supplies to the Reich like fuel and metal they abuse you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't tread on me!"
"You're a ginger, so I'm sure you're legal." [x.com]
What you have to realize about "Don't tread on me" is that it says "me", not "us". As long as ICE sticks to treading on folks with darker skins (the aforementioned racial profiling), they'll just sit back and say "This is what I voted for!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ICE= STASI (Score:5, Interesting)
The "courts" have granted ICE this power, but the courts do not have the authority to grant powers, only the legislative branch does.
This is a part of the encroachment of law enforcement powers and authority that the courts have granted law enforcement without legislative process. This includes qualified immunity, the ability to "Terry Frisk" just about anyone, and several other powers.
It needs to be challenged by SCOTUS, but scotus is too much of a pussy to take up important cases that affect the nation. Only small ones that their self interest aligns with.
Re:ICE= STASI (Score:4, Insightful)
Pussies, yes. But "small ones"? Women's healthcare would disagree with that characterization.
SCOTUS is in charge (Score:2)
scotus is too much of a pussy to take up important cases
That is complete BS. The supreme court is a bunch of authoritarian, power hungry politicians who have effectively taken control of the government. Their opinions are law and the constitution says whatever they want it to say.
Re:SCOTUS is in charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Their opinions are law and the constitution says whatever they want it to say.
That is the problem. The history of this nation as well as the constitution says that ICE does not have this power. We fought a war with another nation over this very issue. But SCOTUS keeps upholding this power that is clearly the anti-thesis for the 4th amendment and reason we went to war.
context: The British were stopping anyone and everyone travelling and searching for communications or weapons and supplies for the revolutionaries. This is one of the preeminent reasons we have a 4th amendment.
Re: ice vs fire would be hilarious they'd shit ems (Score:2)
"guess nobody in gunfuckmerica will actually resist tyranny"
Correct. I used to be a fairly strong 2A supporter but I no longer believe in it because it's clear that it doesn't help resist tyranny, because the people with the most guns literally love tyranny.