Seems like the "I" and "C" might be more relevant? For hundreds of years of civil jurisprudence, enforcing immigration and customs has not involved shooting non-smuggling citizens in the back. Or face.
We all know what's happening here. And sincere application of relevant visa and trade laws is not it.
ICE are brown shirts. Their job is to terrorize the Designated Enemies of the State.
They would need some kind of training to be an officer. Like almost all police in America they're state sanctioned armed thugs, though ice have even less training and are more racist.
When that talks about "lawless behaviour", it shows citizens standing on public sidewalks speaking freely (not illegal), when it asserts that citizens of MN are "funded by shadowy networks" it offers no proof to that assertion, etc.
That is a WSJ opinion piece, it is not a meaningful comparison of US lobbying spend separated by party. Political lobbying is an American problem and most assuredly not limited to democrats.
It is separate from law enforcement with different rules, training, and authority. They enforcement a subset of rules/law. They are not law enforcement in the general sense law enforcement is thought of, no more than Parking Enforcement. For example they can't pull someone over for breaking the law. They don't have authority to enforce all laws, only immigration and customs, and they have much more limited authority to carrying out their duties than REAL law enforcement.
They are immigrations and customs enforcement, not law enforcement. Their minimal training period and requirements indicates as such. The delegated authority of what they are allowed to do indicates as much. But keep building them up to be something more to justify murder of Americans on the streets.
Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas, dude. Talk about the issue I'm talking about instead of ranting on some vague generalization about how "believing your own eyes" is bad sometimes, thus is always bad???
If someone were talking disprovable nonsense about fairies, it would be totally fair to bring up counter-evidence. This comment of yours is substanceless.
