Apple ices ICE agent tracker app under government heat Apple has deep-sixed an app that tracks the movements of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents – apparently bowing to government pressure. The tech giant confirmed it had removed ICEBlock and other similar software from its App Store at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi. The app is designed to tell …
I'm sorry but I'm mighty sick of law enforcement safety being privileged over that of the public. If they don't like their jobs, quit. It was outrageous when they were demanding people who carry guns legally self-identify on a traffic stop and surrender their weapons but this is getting ridiculous.
A immigration raid in Chicago somehow ended up with the legal residents of the building roughed up and having their shit seized for the crime of living next to illegals. Good job they only do this to blue staters who don't legally own weapons so the worst thing they can use is bad language.
https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-federal-agents-surround-south-shore-apartment-building-dhs-requests-military-deployment-illinois/17908911/
(lefty source discussing more of the impact on the actual citizens)
https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated
So we have civil forfeiture visited on people who have no connection to the crime committed. Real cool.
"Violence against law enforcement"
Techically ICE people are not law enforcement, by law at least: No badges, no IDs and face covered. Text "police" is meaningless and these people operate solely by violence.
All signs of orange turd's personal Gestapo.
Trying living in Egypt, Marrocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran and then come back with more nonsense, and they are far from being the worst.
You spoke perfectly like a 1st world priveleged middle class bored left wing person would.
You truly need to get out of the basement.
"Trying living in Egypt, Marrocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran and then come back with more nonsense, and they are far from being the worst."
Yes, and what *exactly* is the difference when humans are literally shot on the street because they were wrong colour? Or kidnapped and hauled to another country, without *any* process at all?
No, *you* need to get out of the bunker.
"Bondi also told Fox Business: "ICEBlock is designed to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs, and violence against law enforcement is an intolerable red line that cannot be crossed." "
And yet ICE does violence against innocent citizens as a part of their "jobs". The real threat of ICEBlock is to let people know areas to avoid, where ICE is vandalizing property and violating the Civil Rights of the average citizen.
They will need that website to be replicated in multiple countries, and accessible via multiple URLs, because no doubt they'll continue to try to block it whether via pressuring ISPs, trying to take over the URL, or pressing the countries where it is housed.
So you need some redundancy to insure those efforts fail.
Emphatic doubt and cynicism for that. At least pensioners in the UK were willing to face down the Met for their convictions, unlike many of the elders I meet who insist "it's not my problem I'm retired."
The 2A crowd maintain a hate on for the federal ATF thugs who kick in doors at the wrong house and steal shit. The liberal crowd hate federal ICE thugs who kick in doors at the wrong house and steal shit. Instead of developing a common front against jackbooted thugs, everyone's content to cheer the "other team" getting fucked over.
The closest thing to organized opposition are only NOW playing hardball because their health insurance patrons are squealing about Trumpublicans cutting their direct taxpayer subsidies, NOT because their voters were getting beat down by masked federal goons.
It's a sick joke to think people here will resist.
"At least pensioners in the UK were willing to face down the Met for their convictions"
Would that be the ones supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation cos you get more virtue signal points for protesting that rather than the actual problem which is going on in Gaza? (obviously ignoring the glaring truth that protesting about it in this country is going to do NOTHING whatsoever even after Starmer said the UK govt recognises the state)
Or the ones having a knock on the door at 2:30 in the AM cos someone had anxieties over a social media post?
Would that be the ones supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation cos you get more virtue signal points for protesting that rather than the actual problem which is going on in Gaza? (obviously ignoring the glaring truth that protesting about it in this country is going to do NOTHING whatsoever even after Starmer said the UK govt recognises the state)
The problem they're protesting is the assault on our right to protest, and by getting arrested in such numbers it does pose a real problem for the government because the courts will have their say on this flimsy bit of Blair-era law and therefore a real difference might be made.
"assault on our right to protest"
Yes but members of this not to be named group were busy assaulting private individuals right to live free from fear, threats and intimidation.
As for the govt cracking down on protests, a good deal of this can be attributed to the actions of the political left. XR, JSO, and other unwashed eco-hippy groups causing chaos as well as people complaining about the far right having the audacity to use their right to protest whatever it is that they have the butthurt about today. We are now to the point where you get threatened with arrested for holding up a blank sheet of paper while King Charlie rides past as it 'may offend someone' or for being in public 'looking openly Jewish'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-monarchy-protest-russia-police-b2166183.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68856360
The Not the 9 o'clock news sketch was supposed to be satire, not turn into reality! I'm waiting to get arrested for stepping on the cracks in the pavement.
But what y'all just don't seem to get is the bigger picture. Waving flags in London won't change anything in Gaza. Starmer has done what the protesters wanted and nothing has changed for the people of Gaza.
The UN has talked, a lot, and it has also done... yup, nothing. People walked out of the UN in protest at Israel, no change.
Netanyahu will only listen to one person and that is the person sat in the Oval Office. It does not matter if they are donkey or elephant. Both sides will support Israel pretty much until the end of the universe. It is safe to say that more than 90% of the house and senate are in full support. The US govt loves this setup as it keeps the wheels of the mighty US defence machine turning and the money flowing. It also gives the US govt access to intelligence streams that the CIA and FBI are not allowed to use.
Until the relationship with the US govt drastically changes or the Israeli people manage to change their own government the situation will not change.
Supporting a prescribed terrorist organisation apparently includes waving a Palestinian flag (supposedly recognised by the UK) or wearing a keffiyeh. It takes very little to get arrested for supporting a prescribed terrorist organisation these days but you can call it virtue signaling if you like.
No, the people getting arrested mostly have signs that say 'I support <group>'. Very few of them have flags or their nan's old tea towel.
They are welcome to protest the supposed govt overreach for proscribing that group or protest what is going on in Gaza, not that either of those things will actually make a difference. But by explicitly saying 'I support <group>' it changes the game.
Let me Google this for you:
Flag: Pro-Palestine protester threatened with arrest takes legal action against Kent police
Keffiyeh: Protestor at Palestine march arrested for wearing Keffiyah scarf wins case
Plasticine Action: Protester arrested for wearing ‘Plasticine Action’ shirt to Westminster rally
So there you go, it's not virtue signaling, it's people's right to protest for a just cause being curtailed. And how could it be anything else with hundreds of pensioners being arrested?
First one, not arrested.
Second one, you might want to read the text :) "An order was put in place for the duration of the march, which allowed police officers to ask people to remove face coverings" Overreaction by PC plod but this was not an arrest for just 'wearing a scarf'. This was also in 2023, a week after the attack by Hamas on Israelis, so tensions were very high. Nothing to do with the proscribed group.
Third one, the guy openly admits he "wore a shirt designed to mimic logo of banned <group>". This was an action designed to antagonise and he got to signal his virtue by getting arrested. Its like the people who got arrested for having shirts with the para-glider picture on.
If you actually read the law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/13
"A person in a public place commits an offence if he wears an item of clothing, or wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation"
We have the very vague and broad "arouse reasonable suspicion". Which is why they threatened to arrest the first person and did arrest the third person.
We are at this point because the thin skinned, usually young, and predominantly politically left wanted to be kept safe from anything that might offend them or hurt their feelings. But it has backfired as the police are applying it equally rather than in the way people wanted which was only against 'the far right'. If you read one of the previous links the person was threatened with arrest as he MIGHT write 'not my king' on a blank bit of paper and that MIGHT offend ONE person in a crowd.
@AC
"A person in a public place commits an offence if he wears an item of clothing, or wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation"
And lots of people think the government should not have made PA a proscribed organisation as there a still a few of us with seemingly quaint ideas about free speech & right of protest.
Be careful about being so keen on just accepting what the government calls a terrorist organisation.
The famous Pastor Martin Niemöller quite springs to mind....
Well if <group> had not terrorised private businesses they would not have been proscribed. It is relatively simple. They attacked the same business near Bristol over 20 times. And they they attacked a couple of US owned businesses and the US govt put pressure on the UK govt.
It was an overreach by the UK govt but equally they brought it upon themselves.
We are at this point because the thin skinned, usually young, and predominantly politically left wanted to be kept safe
This is just rubbish. The history of proscription goes back to N. Ireland where support for, and the activities of terrorist groups were deeply entwined and it was easier to argue suppressing support was necessary for peace. The vast majority of people living through The Troubles, left and right, wanted to be kept safe. I've never heard them described as thin-skinned for this before. Still, it was always done carefully with regular debates in Parliament about the proportionality of proscription versus the right to protest. For a long period of time the legislation was renewed every 6 months I believe.
When New Labour decided the success in N.Ireland was a template for worldwide terrorism, the checks on proscription should mostly be removed and the definition of terrorism widened substantially, that part of the bill was fought by the left-leaning factions in Labour, and by the Lib Dems, and by human rights groups. The government swung around their big majority, pointed to on-going horrors in N.Ireland perpetrated by the Real IRA, and argued without justification that the legislation wouldn't be misused.
Baroness Miller's (Lib Dem) prescience at the time:
My Lords, I am concerned that the Bill as it stands could allow future governments, if they so chose, to blur the line between terrorism—which should always be considered the most serious of offences—and protest. At the very least there should be within the Bill a requirement for a full parliamentary debate every few years about the organisations that should fall within the category of proscribed terrorist organisations. The legislation should be subject to renewal.This is necessary because, as we look back over the past century, many of the protest movements which we now recognise as having furthered the causes of human rights and peace could have fallen within the definitions of terrorists in the Bill if the government of the day had been so minded.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said about the definition of "serious violence". It is to me an extremely difficult thing to define, as it obviously has been in the other place, and before then. Violence against property could be considered serious by its extent, by the extent to which it threatened the establishment, or by the extent to which it intimidated people. If it is defined against the violence perpetrated by the suffragette protests, by the Greenham Common women, at the poll tax protests and at anti-road building protests, it could be measured in many different ways. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Goodhart about Clause 12. The clause requires considerable further debate in your Lordships' House.
The need to protest will never go away. The issues change, and I hope protest will always be peaceful and respectful of property, and never violent against people. But, from time to time through history, the young especially see the iniquity of a path the establishment is trying to follow. They may raise their voices, and sometimes their fists, and they may make life very difficult for that establishment, but we should not allow it in perpetuity to decide what causes are really terrorist causes and what are embarrassments to be silenced. The line between terrorism and protest is a difficult line to define. I hope that your Lordships' House, with its extensive and most knowledgeable view of history, will be able to define the differences and then amend the Bill to preclude any possibility of future governments being able to misuse this legislation to crush the legitimate protests of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
---
Plasticine Action: Protester arrested for wearing ‘Plasticine Action’ shirt to Westminster rally
This is brilliant, we need more of this kind of humour back in British protest.
As ever you've got the wrong end of the stick. The previous comments about the thin of skin were nothing to do with how Blair changed the definition of terrorist groups. Although what <group> was doing was not 'protest' by a LONG way. Causing millions of £ of damage to private property is not protest. It is at its most basic vandalism but the repeated nature was intended to intimidate the people working there and create an atmosphere of fear. It was not done based on one or two incidents. And yes people were arrested, charged and convicted for these acts.
Plus smashing up a business in the UK, over and over again, will not get the Israeli govt to change its ways. In the same way that bringing the M25 to a standstill for a good portion of the day doesn't convert people to an eco-friendly lifestyle.
The thin of skin are the ones responsible for how the police are now more interested in policing hurt feeling and protecting people from the anxieties. In reference to the blank bit of paper or the 'openly Jewish' issues and the 'non crime hate incident' crap. The simple fact that the police will attend someone's home at 2:30 in the morning for a social media post but would not do that for a burglary or assault is a shocking indicator of their changed priorities.
The previous comments about the thin of skin were nothing to do with how Blair changed the definition of terrorist groups.
Hah, yes they were. You literally quoted the legislation on proscribed terror groups and then said "We are at this point because the thin skinned".
Don't blame the police. For all their faults they prioritise based on the severity of the 'crime' and ease of conviction. When a protester is sitting down within knicking distance committing a crime that commands a possible prison sentence of 14 years, they are compelled to act even while senior officers deplore the waste of resources. The government could solve this on Monday by de-proscribing. I just hope they don't because I'd rather see that whole offence humiliatingly shot down by the judiciary and this particular protest with it's thousands of arrests enter the history books as an example of government overreach.
And a bloke with a blank bit of paper not being arrested by one mouthy officer means nothing, I'm not sure why you even mention that.
And yes people were arrested, charged and convicted for these acts.
For criminal damage, not terrorism. They were also acquitted of some criminal damage charges because the jury determined it was 'necessary' given the gravity of things they're protesting. Later on some police were hurt in a scuffle - I'm sure they gave as good as they got, or got as good as they gave. So maybe we have aggravated assault or similar, that's yet to be tested in court as far as I know. Yvette has given us the juicy bits while trying to imply there's more she can't talk about, so clearly there isn't more. Whether or not you personally feel these things step over the line of legitimate protest into criminality (I'm not making a judgement because the more serious cases are yet to be tried), I don't think you can argue any reasonable person would use the word terrorism. If you do then all you're doing is diminishing the gravity of the word as it applies to seriously dangerous terrorist groups. The likelihood that their protest achieves nothing (as most protests don't) doesn't factor into their right or not to do it or whether it's criminal or terrorist or not.
Regardless of all that ugly business, the people sitting down peacefully with placards are categorically not terrorists. They are protesters and that right is very clearly protected under several important international treaties the UK signed up to and indeed helped create.
Read some more.
"We have the very vague and broad "arouse reasonable suspicion". Which is why they threatened to arrest the first person and did arrest the third person."
So the law quoted has nothing to do with the proscription of a group but the SUPPORT. And the point being that the wording around deciding if someone 'supports' is hugely vague and up to PC plod to decide.
"For criminal damage, not terrorism."
For the individual acts it is criminal. And the group had not been proscribed at the time. The sum of the acts by many different people combined with the scale, timeline and organisation level makes for the terrorism bit. As said I do not agree with the very heavy handed approach by the govt.
And a number have been gaoled for criminal damage and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
"Whether or not you personally feel these things step over the line of legitimate protest into criminality"
The deliberate targeting of people completely unconnected with the aims of the protest makes it criminality. The normal people who work at these businesses have absolutely zero influence on what is going on in Gaza. Smashing up the things that these people use to earn a living and support their families does not stop what is going on. And is unlikely to turn these people to the cause.
Direct action against 'non combatants' does not help the cause. It might make you feel like Che for a while. At least back in the 70s, 80s and 90s protesters protested in the right place. Greenham common, anti-roads protests etc.
"They are protesters and that right is very clearly protected under several important international treaties the UK signed up to and indeed helped create."
Actually no, they are actively showing support for a proscribed group. Holding a sign with specific wording. To not get arrested all they needed to do was not have that specific wording.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq2e9x19g8o
It is unlikely the people who hung the sign off Westminster bridge would have been arrested if they'd only hung the first half. Or if the second half had stopped one word earlier.
Plus they are not 'protesting', they are virtue signalling. To them the fate of some fellow, mostly white, upper middle class tarquinistas is now more important.
The ones that caused damage and harm are getting due process and no doubt getting good legal representation as well. The people still trying to organise direct action are being dealt with too. Even without the proscription the things they were doing were illegal. They are not going to be shipped off to GITMO, or whatever the UK equiv might be. (Canvey Island?)
"We have the very vague and broad "arouse reasonable suspicion". Which is why they threatened to arrest the first person and did arrest the third person."So the law quoted has nothing to do with the proscription of a group but the SUPPORT. And the point being that the wording around deciding if someone 'supports' is hugely vague and up to PC plod to decide.
Proscription and supporting proscribed groups are two related parts of the very same law enacted at the same time. You're aren't even splitting hairs. If you want to talk about reforming this law then I'm in favour of all of: 1) Tightening up the definition of terrorism so that a group like Palestine Action can't be labelled terrorists, 2) Making sure no group can be without a proper Parliamentary debate (not a single vote with another group thrown in so MPs can't vote for one and not the other) and some time limits, and yes 3) The definition of support should be tightened up a lot. To be fair though these awful, vague phrases which our legislation is littered with often (not always) get tightened up well in court, and then the police follow the precedent.
Police threatening to arrest people but not doing so is par for the course. I don't believe there's even any law against them lying to you about the law (it's the US but that scene in S2 Breaking Bad where Badger's worried about dealing drugs to undercover cops is a brilliant, funny example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InA4SmSlObw The Wire had some great underhanded cop tactics borrowed from real-life too. It's not right but that's another matter entirely). It's rarer they arrest and then de-arrest after admitting mistake, but there we are. I refuse to get too excited about isolated incidents that don't lead to charges.
the acts by many different people combined with the scale, timeline and organisation level makes for the terrorism bit
What they did is a lot less terrorising to actual people than what's going on around asylum hotels every day of the week. They only got proscribed because they touched RAF assets, which however you look at it is embarrassing for the establishment. Protest groups are allowed, and frequently feature scale, timeline and organisation, and although it's not allowed frequently also resort to criminal damage.
Can you think of any other time a slightly organised passionate group of direct action protesters were called terrorists? Yes, the Stansted 15. Also dared to touched a government plane. That's the key factor here.
no, they are actively showing support for a proscribed group. Holding a sign with specific wording. To not get arrested all they needed to do was not have that specific wording.
Yea the irony is those getting arrested for 'supporting' aren't merely arousing reasonable suspicion, they're literally saying they do support, but in fact most of them likely don't fully support the methods Palestine Action used. They're just saying they do as a form of protest. The law as written is several levels too stupid to see that.
"They only got proscribed because they touched RAF assets"
That was only part of the equation. They messed up a couple of US owned businesses. FAFO. The US govt was already pressuring the UK govt. Smashing up the same business over 20 times really didn't help their cause.
"What they did is a lot less terrorising to actual people than what's going on around asylum hotels every day of the week"
False. The migrant hotels are not being broken into and the contents smashed up over and over and over again. And those that have taken part in direct action have been arrested and have had the book thrown at them. There isn't some higher controlling group telling people to do this, unlike with the palestine lot.
"but in fact most of them likely don't fully support the methods Palestine Action used."
I'd hazard a guess that they do support the actions. Lets the lefties show their true colours.
Either way you guys have really screwed it now :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo
@AC
Just because the UK government calls something a terrorist group does not mean it is, it means the government does not like the beliefs and actions of that group.
The UK government is aiding Israel in the Gaza genocide, so very much in interest of UK government to demonize critics of the genocide (& a group doing a few small symbolic acts of vandalism fitted the bill nicely as gave them a (very weak) excuse to proscribe them as terrorists).
..Many variants on the phrase: One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
Unsurprisingly, lots of people in the UK reacted badly to this smearing of a group just wanting to protest a genocide (it is not a war, it is a genocide that disproportionately kills women & children).
I'm old enough to remember Thatcher and her cronies frequently calling Mandela & the ANC terrorists.
Fast forward a few years and they are eagerly having dialogue (though some of the earliest talks were to stop the ANC nationalizing lots of the economy as would have cost some UK companies a lot of money that had heavily invested in SA) - quite a quick change of tone / wording used once those "terrorists" became the government of SA.
"Just because the UK government calls something a terrorist group does not mean it is"
Except what that group was doing was creating terror in the victims of their actions.
"The UK government is aiding Israel in the Gaza genocide"
How? Starmer has blithered on about a state, not that 'Palestine' was ever a country. And he has cut off military supplies. The UN has waffled on about states and genocide and did a preformative walkout and still nothing has changed.
"I'm old enough to remember Thatcher and her cronies frequently calling Mandela & the ANC terrorists"
It might come as a shock but they were. The ANC took up arms against the govt.
"Fast forward a few years and they are eagerly having dialogue"
And do you know why? Cos the SA govt didn't have the unwavering support of the US government behind them. The SA govt had pretty much been cut off by everyone. It is a very different situation.
"I'm old enough to remember Thatcher and her cronies frequently calling Mandela & the ANC terrorists."
Of course they did: Thatcher is and was a full-fledged fascist. Current government isn't far from that either.
To a fascist *anyone* opposing him/her is a terrorist as in fascist world there are only Good People (Us) and Terrorists (Them).
Do you actually know what that word actually means?
You're pretty much quoting from the playbook of the KPD. The very group that turned into Antifa and worked with the NSDAP to keep capitalism out of Germany with the aim of bringing Stalin-ism in by violent means. Sadly for the KPD the NSDAP out Stalined them and in the style of most great political revolutions the useful idiots ended up against the wall.
I see that you are assuming that there will be elections in both 2026 and 2028... Trump wants a 3rd term which is illegal and against the constitution but he's clearly (IMHO) working towards declaring Martial Law and banning all elections.
I want (and most of the world also wants) normality to return to the USA but while Trump and Goebbels V2.0 (Miller) are running the show, that will be impossible.
>try to woo them
Actually, he gave them the mother and father of all kicks up the arse.
You'd know that if you put down your pre-packed marketing material and instead addressed the real world: the speech transcript is readily available online.
It *does*, I warn you, utterly scramble your script -- it's entirely orthogonal to it.
"Actually, he gave them the mother and father of all kicks up the arse."
Ehheh. Ex-drunk and a moron talking about honour and war to military veterans? Are you daft or something? Did you actually listen whole hour of incoherent rant? How much they are paying you?
The *only* message was that "we're morons". Possibly hinting that any dissidents will be fired.
It should have been an email.
>military veterans
No. Prima bureaucracy winners in an ossified peacetime bureaucracy.
>The *only* message was that "we're morons". Possibly hinting that any dissidents will be fired.
The former is approximately 100% accurate, but only after this cmd: "sed s/we\'re/you\'re/". And post-cmd the latter is not just correct, not just valid, but tremendously beneficial. Approximately none of them do anything militarily useful.
I invite you to read AND UNDERSTAND any documents from their military. For, including early warnings of same, over a century.
The infestation you're so proud of and so defensive of has been a long time growing.
And it's not confined to the military.
"that come 2028, ICE agents will be burying their medals and burning their uniforms."
I don't believe that a second. There will be no elections and orange turd sits in power until killed/dies.
It is very questionable if mid-term elections in 2026 will happen either.
GOP is already blocking all the Democrat swear-ins, so they can't vote at all, despite being elected in the Congress (State, not federal. Yet).
That's an established pattern which will used until there are no Democrats in the Congress. Very simple.
Make the app source code available for free, and provide detailed instructions on how to build and sideload it from your computer. Make sure that all backend infrastructure and the source code itself are mirrored across multiple jurisdictions, and checked against each other so that attempts to sabotage the app and its data can be protected.
A service like this, protecting American citizens from the gestapo. No not that. Don’t know why I said gestapo. I meant to say Stasi. No. Damn. Not that. KGB? Tip o’ me tongue. Securitate? OVRA? ah yes. ICE. Well anyway, anyone who values freedom and democracy will agree that such a service is worth saving.
Interestingly, the requirement to arrest & separate children from their family was created by Obama.
(Law enforcement HATE it, but no one important enough has had it high enough on their priorities to try to get Congress to reverse it.)
Likewise the "childrens' cages" on the border.
Rather "lovely" photographs issued by the White House at the time, of Obama inspecting & proudly showing off his creations.
My "favourite" was the surreal, high, naked, cubical, iron-bar cages inside and widely separated from a brutalist concrete shell with, walking beside them, the State Governor looking like she'd been suddenly dropped into hell then hit very hard in the back of the head with a hammer, and Obama strutting beside her looking like a cross between a rooster and the cat that got the cream.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that not looking white enough is a perfectly valid reason for a van to pull up, a group of people wearing balaclavas to jump out and grab the not white enough person, bundle them in to the van, and speed off...
A normal judge heard about them doing that sort of thing based entirely on "that person over there looks Latino to me", and issued an injunction. Trump asked his pals at the supreme court to to overturn it, which they did.
I wonder if the reason they did that was because the lawyers reminded the supreme judges of a previous ruling they made where they told everyone that the president has immunity if he were to order the military to execute a judge for not doing what they are told?
Oh, you mean the kids they marched out of an apartment block in Chicago naked and who were not illegal? I mean it is on-brand for a paedophile rapist President with a paedophile rapist Cabinet to use paedophile rapist ICE goons to parade the children of American citizens in the street naked. I hate to think what goes on in their concentration camps. Not one ICE raid on a known gang or any known violent "illegals" -- they are, like all fascist goons and their witless sympathisers such as yourself, a bunch of cowardly little arseholes. They need protecting from the big bad public, those big men with their enormous guns, armour, helmets, flash-bang grenades, hidden faces and total lack of identification as legitimate law officers? Doo-fucking-diddums. The fearless, fascist warriors pick on kids, gardeners, hotel maids, anyone they know is essentially harmless to them; they would run a mile if confronted with anyone armed (which I keep hearing is protected by the Constitution out your way, except any time non-white folk are armed, they end up shot by the pohhlice).
https://theintercept.com/2025/10/03/ice-children-deportation-payment/?utm_content=bufferd47a3&utm_medium=buffer&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=theintercept&fbclid=IwY2xjawNOgB9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETAwWTMxbTNjdDc0cHdzZzJGAR6Oc5wCswsvmFcYUC4_B-BSEtnkJF2pqjp-Uc8D1qT4JjviVqKOiGBrN31iuA_aem_pbYTyvmqt9aK6t17p3llIg
Squeal piggy! You’ve won the idiot of the day award!
You might want to watch American History X and consider very carefully the message within. ICE are just government sanctioned versions of the Nazi thugs in the films. And the flag shagging is just a more photogenic version of Ed Norton’s character showing his tattoo and saying “you know what this means? It means not welcome here”
Go back enough generations and you’re an immigrant too. And you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
In the UK, the local NGOs only give them Androids. Cheaper.
Not sure what the US NGOs were doing. After US"AID" got cut, suddenly a lot of illegal support collapsed.
Also, amusingly, various high-profile Hard-Left media people costing their employers a net many millions of dollars a year, suddenly went quiet.
Interestingly, Qatar has now been documented stepping in to replace USAID funding and they're reappearing. Qatar continues to be the major funders of Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
