“First, the men at the center of the 60 Minutes segment were in fact shipped off to CECOT without any sort of judicial review. Second, even after the Supreme Court ruled that alleged “alien enemies” have a due process right to challenge their removal via habeas corpus petitions, the administration made that option nearly impossible to pursue in practice, as the Court subsequently recognized. Third, the government maintains that federal courts have, at most, a highly circumscribed role in these cases, saying they have no authority to question Trump’s historically unprecedented invocation of the AEA against alleged gang members.
Trump’s assertion of unreviewable power under the AEA is part of a broader pattern that became clear during his first year in office. He has made similar claims regarding his tariffs and National Guard deployments. In these and other cases, Trump’s position undermines civil liberties, the rule of law, and the separation of powers by attacking the crucial role that the judicial branch plays in making sure that presidents respect statutory and constitutional limits on their authority.”
The Minneapolis police chief said that ICE’s irresponsible behavior is creating great strain on the city’s police force. So is people’s aggressive antagonization and anger at ICE.
Viewing the incident where the ICE officer killed a woman, the chief said ICE officers appeared to create a situation that was dangerous and acted against good policing.
He made tough progress to rebuild the Minneapolis police department after the George Floyd protests, and he fears that ICE tactics are going to create a huge setback.
“As members of federal law enforcement, ICE officers have the authority to stop, detain and arrest people they believe to be in the country illegally. They need a warrant to arrest someone inside a private home or business. In public spaces, they can make arrests without a warrant, but they must have cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is violating immigration laws.
…
“By the letter of the law, ICE only has the authority to detain, arrest or deport people who are believed to be in the country illegally.
In practice, however, there are many accounts of American citizens being caught up in the administration’s raids. The news site ProPublica identified upward of 170 incidents where citizens were held by immigration authorities, including some who were detained even after showing a legal government ID.
ICE can detain citizens if they allegedly commit a crime, such as interfering with an immigration operation or assaulting officers. ProPublica’s list includes 130 people who were held for alleged infractions, though those cases “often wilted under scrutiny” and very few resulted in convictions.
…
ICE reported that it had conducted 622,000 deportations since the start of Trump’s second term on Jan. 20, 2025. While that’s well short of the goal of 1 million annual deportations the administration had set for itself, it’s still enough to shatter the previous annual record of 316,000 set during Barack Obama’s presidency.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/can-ice-agents-detain-us-citizens-what-powers-do-they-have-to-arrest-people-your-most-common-questions-answered-194725171.html
“It’s not hard to find examples of this rotten agency culture in practice. In late October 2025, ICE officers broke out the window of a U.S. citizen’s car and detained her for seven hours after she followed and photographed their unmarked vehicles. DHS accused her of reckless driving, attempting to block in officers with her car, and resisting arrest—all claims that she and her lawyer deny. Prosecutors did not charge the woman with a crime.
Recording government agents is one of the few tools citizens have to hold state power accountable. Any attempt to redefine observation as “violence” is not only unconstitutional—it’s authoritarian gaslighting. When a government fears cameras more than crimes, it isn’t protecting the rule of law. It’s protecting itself.”
Legally…”Under the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents, the crucial question is not whether Good was actually trying to run Ross down but whether his avowed belief that she posed a threat to him was “objectively reasonable” given “the totality of the circumstances.”
The 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner involved a suspected burglar who was shot while fleeing police. The Supreme Court held that the use of deadly force is unconstitutional in such circumstances “unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
To assess whether a use of force is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained four years later in Graham v. Connor, judges should consider “the totality of the circumstances,” paying “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” The Court said relevant factors include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
…
The Justice Department’s policy on the use of force jibes with what the Supreme Court has said. “Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect,” it notes, and “firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.”
The Justice Department explains that “firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” The circumstances of the Minneapolis shooting suggest that Ross may have violated that policy.”
“In addition to the 14 shootings involving ICE agents, 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025. That figure makes 2025 the deadliest year for the agency in more than 20 years and matches the previous record high set in 2004, as the administration moved to detain an unprecedented number of people.”
“Minnesota officials said Thursday that federal law enforcement are freezing out state investigators from the investigation into the deadly ICE-related shooting of a 37-year-old woman.”
“Of the roughly 281,000 people arrested by ICE from January 20 through December 9, fewer than 10,000 individuals are classified as “the worst of the worst” by the DHS, according to analysis done by the Cato Institute’s Director of Immigration Studies, David Bier. Of those classified, “a majority (56 percent) of the list has not been charged or convicted of a violent crime,” according to Bier, “and nearly a quarter…had nothing but a vice, immigration (e.g., illegal entry), or non-DUI traffic charge.” Thousands of faces and names have been placed on the DHS’ list for minor offenses, like drug possession charges.
The DHS database tracks closely with previous findings by Bier. After analyzing data on immigration arrests between October 1, 2024, and June 14, 2025, Bier found that 65 percent of people arrested by ICE had no criminal convictions, and 93 percent had no violent convictions. Even more recently, data on individuals booked into ICE custody since October 1 showed an increase in the number of detainees with no criminal convictions—73 percent—and even fewer people with violent convictions—only 5 percent. (Note that Bier’s analysis estimated an even higher percentage of violent criminals in ICE custody than the new DHS database.)
…
It’s clear the DHS is using a relatively small number of immigrants who have committed violent crimes to justify a slew of rights violations, including excessive force, due process violations, and overcrowded, inhumane conditions in detention facilities as a means to achieve one of the Trump administration’s chief goals: deporting 1 million people by the end of the year. Given this reality, Noem’s suggestion that the current methods of immigration enforcement are done in the name of following the law rings hollow.”
Japan’s anti-foreigner political turn is resulting in greater difficulty to start a business there and gain permanent residency. The people’s anti-foreigner feelings may be driven by too many tourists who do not respect Japan’s conservative culture.