This is an object lesson in the importance of force and violence in politics. ICE is able to flaunt the law because they're willing to use both. Until members of Congress start showing up with breaching teams and armed security, the law is irrelevant. Just a piece of paper.
If they allow themselves to be turned away, they didn't really want in.
What was he supposed to do - scale the fence? Crash the gates with his vehicle?
He is legally allowed to enter, he should bring law enforcement and have them facilitate entry. They can't legally keep him out, so he should assert that right.
I hear you, Tim, and if this were a responsible, law-abiding administration that would be more than enough. But I seriously doubt that these clowns would open the gate even if he brought law enforcement, Seal Team 6 and the 1st Infantry Division. These asshats have ZERO respect for the law.
If you don't try something because you think they might stop you, they have already stopped you
Then you tell Seal Team Six to make a hole for you. That would be the point of bringing them. Or you post up with a supply line and don’t leave until you get in. While sure that gives them time to clean up a bit you still at least get in, and you keep doing it.
Are you going to be putting on a mask and being part of the mob surrounding members of Congress as they do this?
Or until members of Congress are willing to force the security forces to arrest them.
They look like dopes standing there and being denied access. There must be away to get in there. ICE isn’t afraid of accountability because there is none.
ID that man
What "armed security" can congress legally use against a govt installation?
What agency would that be, the Marshals?
It’s amazing to see yet again how those in law-enforcement are the lawless ones.
This is obvious to me, a small bean nobody. I keep asking why they dont show up with local LEOs or state police to force their way in and arrest anyone who obstructs them from their legal oversight. But congresspeople are too stupid to see what they need to do? They wave ID cards?
Part of the issue is probably that they know local and state police are in favor of ICE and would tell congresspeople some excuse they couldn’t do it before calling the facility to tell them what’s planned.
They're congresspeople, often from very blue districts. They can find local forces that want to flex some local power to uphold the law. You don't need every cop in town, just six reasonable uniformed LEOs with guns and bolt cutters.
Even in very blue districts, I doubt you would find six officers to help them storm a facility. They should still try, of course, but the number of Dem politicians willing to call out the local LEOs for not supporting them is even lower than the number that would try.
Actually no, it's a lesson in why the legislature's only recourse to get police under control is to defund the police
Only people they could bring would also be Federal under control of the Executive. Would be an awkward conversation with their boss. The State could do that if officials decided to flaunt Federal supremacy, which they absoultely should be doing. Although, didn't really work last time (civil rights).
There are more lawbreakers "working" for ICE than there are being held in ICE gulags.
Can the congressmen bring the Sargent at arms with them, or would that require consent of the Speaker (which would never happen)?
Agreed, but do congress people have legal access to that kind of force?
If he has every right, then why does he not visit with an enforcement agency? Do what it takes to enforce the law.
Finding an agency that's not under executive control is the difficult part
*flout
It's why every general election is about keeping fascists away from power, especially federal power, and we failed.
Hard to keep fascists away from power when people like you think and talk like fascists.
To be fair, the failing started 250 years ago with John Adams and steady encroachment of Executive overreach. Gerrymandering by the States probably did more to cause this by rendering congress irrelevant.
And keeping the House capped
This!! Granted, there needs to be a cap of some sort because a House of 1,000+ is just never going to get anything done. But we could easily go to ~500 and that would help level the disproportional imbalance between CA/NY and WY/SD.
I disagree, I think 1000+ can work. It needs to be more efficient that's why so much is done via executive fiat. How to Fix the House: Add About 500 Seats | TIME share.google/bu7iMcgTlxuj...
Sounds like you’d be a fan of the #CubeRootRule, Trou. @uncapthehouse.bsky.social #hr4125 ✌🏻😎🇺🇸
Revolution doesn't generally happen peacefully....
Maybe a strongly worded letter will convince Nazis to stop being Nazis.
It astounds me when intelligent people expect criminals to follow the law. ESPECIALLY when they literally own the keys to the prison...
Why aren't @housedemocrats.bsky.social @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social organizing teams to show up at these facilities to perform legal oversight? If they are refused and/or arrested, then that will only expose the illegality of these authoritarian actions. SHOW UP!!
The illegality of these authoritarian actions is being PLENTY exposed. What's also being exposed is the abject uselessness of declaring one's rights without the means to assert them.
Plenty of people are not paying attention. Creative methods are absolutely necessary to pierce the fog of misinformation and noise. And yes, the lack of enforcement because he’s installed authoritarian puppets and the GOP Congress has collapsed is a critical issue.
As a life long liberal, I can assure you the current breed of Democratic politicians most certainly do not have the backbone for even contemplating such a thing much less carrying it out. All the more reason that the current leadership is not equipped for this moment.
*flout
Thank you! Flaunt and flout have such different meanings that it drives me crazy when people get it wrong.
Totally agree that this is the only way out of this mess. But, it’s a legitimate question to ask who would make up this breaching force. State Police? Disloyal (to Trump) federal officers? Congressmen with crowbars and guns? Ambitious and perhaps a little bit touched junior military officers?
Any and all of the above, and more. There's a whole Constitutional Amendment about it. The only difference between "ragtag" and "well-regulated" is time and practice.
Absolutely 💯 Breaching Teams!
You are correct….but they want that. They want the violent confrontation so they can go 24/7 “the left is violently attacking law enforcement!” Democrats need to very clearly lay out why they will use force
Since even under a Dem house, a Trump DOJ is never filing charges, can Congress use outside counsel to press charges for denial of legislatively mandated access to facilities?
Like show up with bolt cutters and guns and dare ICE to *break the law* by stopping you
Guns never solve(d) anything. SCOTUS needs to lay down the law.
LMFAO how
What are you talking about? You live in the USA - a country that only exists because of an illegal treasonous armed rebellion
I haven't figured out when I get a response to a comment that I made, what the thread or context was. If you can help me with that, then I will be happy to respond.
So we need to elect people who are ready for a shootout? Wouldn't this give federal agents the justification for killing people?
Yes, we absolutely do need to elect people who are ready to defend themselves and us. ICE has already demonstrated lawlessness. That is an affirmative choice. To assume that a strong posture gives license to the aggressor is to deny that they also have agency.
Have you seen the budget for ICE? How can individual Congressmen out gun ICE?
Yes, I have, and it’s terrifying. Which is why we need to stop thinking of ourselves as only individuals pushing back against an aggressor. After all, what are our options? Cowering in a corner, head down and silent, hoping to be left alone? I’m not aware of a situation where that’s worked.
Thinking we can out gun ICE is delusional. Elections have consequences. Win midterms and stop funding ICE.
Money can’t wield a gun. They don’t have the number of people to do what you’re suggesting.
Martial law is what Trump wants. Then he can cancel elections in the name of national security - 'it's not safe enough to carry out secure elections". We have to decide what hill to die on. Getting into a detention center to find out what we already know isn't that hill.
I’m a grandmother in her mid sixties. None of this is a glorious heroic adventure to me. It’s horrific and deeply depressing. So I ask you sincerely, other than mass action and defense of our fellow human beings, what are the options? Continuing to do as we’ve done so far isn’t working.
What is gained? Access to detention centers? To prove what? That these are evil people doing evil to fellow human beings? Should be pretty obvious to anyone paying attention. People have been incarcerated in foreign prisons without due process. Nothing new can be revealed here.
You keep giving up hills and before you know it you’ve lost the war. We’ve already given up too many hills.
There is nothing here we don't already know. We're not gaining anything. This is not the hill.
It would give them rationalization not justification since they would be breaking the law But yes politics isn’t a polite game, it’s actually a proxy for settling disagreements that normally would result in violence When 1 side stops following the rules, as ICE is doing here, it compels violence
It would be more than rationalization. In a courtroom it would be justification where previously there was none. Trump has been generally losing in court. If Democrats follow through on their current suit, the courts will likely rule in their favor.
You have just confirmed you are too stupid to be having this conversation, please log off and go outside for a while.
That should 100% be criteria for Congress. “defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” needs to be operationalized
Sounds like a once off option. Once ICE gets wind of the first instance they can respond with massive armed security forces. They would also be able to claim security threat to justify their blocking of access. ICE is well financed. Congress is not.
if you believe that would be the consequence, why the heck would you accept to continue living under the veneer of civility and the delusion of rule of law, if you agree they have no solid ground anymore?
There's a difference between rationalizing these illegal acts and having the courts on your side. Trump has been regularly losing in court. I expect he will lose again and access will be granted. I do think that courts need to start making law breakers financially liable. Not sure how-not a lawyer.
You are describing a scenario where congressionally funded executive branch security services could open fire on congressionally funded security services working for Congress. This is absolutely not a desire of mine, but at least it makes clear the lawlessness we are living in.
Congress would be out gunned. ICE has been gold plated.
But you’re missing my point: the guns, the badges, the authorities, are all granted by Congress and may be taken away with a stroke of a pen. Dems in Congress need to be seen picking these fights to assert their Constitutional authority.
Congress can take away these things by changing the law. But Democrats don't have the majority or the White House. We need to make it clear. The two parties aren't the same. And elections have consequences. Too many people have bought into the cynicism.
This is true but misses the fact that politics is more than just “do you have the votes?” Dems can and should drive the agenda by going on offense. ICE denies access? Show up with the sergeant of arms. If it’s crime to refuse a congressperson’s access than charge them!
Charges come from the Executive Branch.
What other option is there? Watching? Either enforce the law or watch?
I mean, the current strategy of "Ask nicely" is getting us fuck-all anywhere. We're not getting out of this peacefully. We simply won't.
I agree. Democrats are suing for unannounced visits. Shouldn't be necessary. But it should be first option since Trump is breaking the law.
A judge can deputize anyone. Get a judge to deputize a crew and force your way in. Yes, people will get hurt. They are willing to hurt you. Will you sit idly by and take it?
Democrats are in court to sue for access right now. That's the first step.
Yes. It is their solemn duty to die, if need be, to defend the constitution. The oaths they all have sworn have no allowance for cowardice.
Let them fire the first shot, it will mark their end. There are more of us than there are of them.
100%. FWIW I think you mean "flout."
Federal law explicitly grants Members of Congress the right to conduct unannounced oversight visits to facilities operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used to detain or house aliens. This right is established in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020, Trump’s previous term.
More similarities than differences between ICE and a violent gang
It worked in South Korea
I think you mean "flout." And you are correct!
THIS RIGHT HERE
Unfortunately our government places the power to do so with the Executive. And the Executive is the one who wants these abuses to happen.
What is the wardens name?
This is how countries fall part and provoke an uncivil war.
Random quote, totally unrelated to anything: "[the second American Revolution will] remain bloodless as long as the left allows it to be" -Kevin Roberts (president of the heritage foundation and an author of Project 2025)
Fascists only understand violence
I am a vet. I am willing to use violence. We need leadership and I doubt that the democratic party is capable of wartime leadership. That is why they not climbing in the polls.
They’re able to flout the law.
btw, is there an explanation for 9 out of 10 of these guys being the size of 2 normal adults?
I think you mean flout (ignore) flaunt (display ostentatiously) makes little sense in context.
Where are they getting breaching teams? What police force is joint the democrats in that project? The pigs love Trump
I've come around to the point that posting these videos of themselves just standing at the door yelling about how they're allowed to be there while the guards just ignore them is actually counterproductive.
What kind of legal authority does an individual member of Congress have? I'm all in favor of this member of Congress seeing what he needs to see -- but I'm foggy on his claims of special legal authority by virtue of being a member of Congress.
Every appropriations bill in recent years has included that no funds may be appropriated for any of these facilities that do not allow all members of Congress to enter and inspect them at will
I didn't know that! Thanks for the additional information.
Umm. How does show that rules are being broken but film those rules being broken? I'm not sure what you want him to do.
Umm. Fight for his rights, same as the rest of us have to.
That is why he is filming. That is one of the steps in fighting. Gotta have proof. He has that.
I'm sure if you try hard you can figure out what I want him to do by reading the post I was replying to! Also filming them "breaking the rules" doesn't help do anything at all!
Of course filming them does something. The ones breaking the law are recorded. How else do you want someone to document someone breaking the law?
I am also mostly just stating that posting a bunch of videos of people impotently yelling at people who are smirking while they ignore you is bad PR, on a basic level.
Under the unitary theory (a theory more and more made fact) even minor functionaries hold and are the executive power. If control flows down shouldn't accountability flow up? Any and every violation of the law is yet another count for the sole remedy of impeachment.
The number of officials at DOJ that knowingly broke the law over the deportations is double digits, between that an DHS it must be in the hundreds. In 3.5 more years it will be in the thousands. Anyone who hasn't quit or been fired by end of this year in those agencies is willfully colluding enemy.
