During the Biden administration, the FBI shot dead in his home a disabled elderly man for posting offensive messages about Biden on Facebook. Curiously, his name didn’t become widely known and nobody has expressed much interest in how justified the FBI was in claiming they were threatened by him. Clearly, some expansions of federal powers are more acceptable than others.
An Absent Scandal
Clarissa's Blog 
At least Biden wasn’t hiring 10k masked thugs to go around harassing and shooting at people.
LikeLike
No, he only brought in 10 million unmasked thugs to go harassing and shooting at people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Both are bad. I can agree to that.
LikeLike
OK, but how do you remove the illegals without using law enforcement? If you don’t want the illegals, what’s an alternative way to make them leave?
LikeLike
One easy fix would be to debank them. We know this is possible because the Biden administration loved debanking right-wingers. Or hit the hospitality and farming sector but Trump already ruled that out. Instead all we’re getting is spectacle and no real results. There’s a reason they won’t release the deportation numbers.
LikeLike
Same way Obama did really.
There are ways to remove people, deter people, and make it difficult for people to come without going full authoritarian. These ICE shootings, covered faces, militarized gear, lack of training, low IQ hires, going through our neighbors hunting people is going to back fire badly and do the opposite of what it’s intended to do. A lot of Americans don’t take well to that kind of authoritarian militarized thuggery.
LikeLike
In all fairness, it’s not necessarily because how competent Obama was. It’s just that dem policies are carried out no questions asked by the state bureaucracy, no matter how flawed they are. And Trump’s policies get resisted every step of the way no matter how reasonable they are.
If Obama did indeed deport millions, why did we not see a SINGLE instance of a Federal judge issuing a stay order on even one of those cases? No judicial roadblocks, no bureaucratic obstacles, states largely cooperating with the feds. The system functioned smoothly and without interruption.
It’s still on Trump, though, to fix it. All we can do as voters is give our votes, and we gave this piece of shit party the presidence, the senate and the house. Now fucking do something with it.
LikeLike
Obama didn’t deport anybody. It’s an old, thoroughly debunked myth. He created fake deportation stats.
I had no idea anybody still believed the old “Obama Deporter in Chief” story. Wow, it’s such a blast from the past, this one.
Obama deported. Funny. Like, why would he deport anybody? Did he want his party to lose elections?
LikeLike
Who debunked this myth? And who reported on his fake deportation statistics?
LikeLike
Banned in Google, are we?
I asked AI and here’s the result:
The label “Deporter in Chief” attached to Barack Obama is widely described as unfair or misleading because it arose from a statistical and definitional shift, not from a uniquely harsh deportation agenda. Here’s how that label emerged and why many scholars and immigration experts argue it distorts reality.
A change in how deportations were counted
Before Obama, “deportation” (removal) statistics largely excluded people caught at the border and immediately turned back.
Under Obama, the Department of Homeland Security:
Started counting “expedited removals” and border returns as formal deportations
Included people apprehended near the border who previously would not have appeared in removal statistics
➡️ This inflated the numbers on paper, even though enforcement practices at the border were similar to prior administrations.
Key point: Obama didn’t suddenly invent mass deportation—he changed the accounting rules, making removals more transparent and comprehensive.
Interior deportations (people already living in the U.S.) dropped sharply in Obama’s second term
Yet the label stuck because:
Advocacy groups focused on cumulative totals
Headlines favored shocking numbers over context.
Why many experts say the label is misleading
Most immigration historians argue:
Obama normalized and documented deportation practices that already existed
He combined enforcement with the largest humanitarian relief programs since Reagan
His policies aimed at legal and moral triage, not blanket removal
So the label reflects optics and statistics, not intent or comparative severity.
LikeLike
I’d be OK with the talking points if everybody simply appended: “I’m getting paid by X organization to say this”
Of course, those who repeat them without getting paid are chumps.
-ethyl
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A lot of Americans don’t take well to that kind of authoritarian militarized thuggery.”
This used to be a basic conservative principle (“Don’t tread on me.”).
LikeLike
Since when did “me” include illegal migrants? Or do you suggest that it’s conservative to be against enforcing any laws?
And by the way, I saw this line about don’t tread on me to justify anti-ICE protests on social media today about 10 times. It’s a talking point. Let’s not do talking points because honestly.
LikeLike
That sounds more like a libertarian principle. I know people often conflate the two but they’re really not the same thing.
LikeLike
A real question, though: if ICE is not required to have warrants or respect the rights of those that they’re questioning/arresting, then aren’t they treading on illegal migrants and citizens alike? Don’t there need to be some restrictions on law enforcement?
LikeLike
No branch of law enforcement is required by existing law to have warrants to detain people. Have you watched Law & Order? There’s no question of police needing arrest warrants every time they make an arrest. That simply doesn’t exist and never has.
Here’s what AI says on the subject:
Under federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1357), ICE officers may arrest a non-citizen without a warrant if:
The person is in public (street, parking lot, workplace open to the public), and
The officer has probable cause to believe the person is removable or has committed an immigration violation.
➡️ This is similar to how police can arrest someone in public without a warrant.
LikeLike
You’ve copied AI in two separate responses.
What happened to the person who was worried about the algorithm shaping what you “want” to buy, before you’re even aware of it, to send money off to the oligarchs?
Are you really trusting some tech company’s AI to give you the truth without their owner’s thumb on the scale?
LikeLike
I can count to two, thank you.
I purposefully used the wokest AI of all (ChatGPT) to show to our liberal commenter that even the most left-wing compilator in existence knows these facts. Feel free to use any other source and please let us know if you find one saying that every arrest needs a warrant. You won’t find it for obvious reasons but feel very free to look.
LikeLike