ICE: How We Got Here (Part 3)

In the third part of our miniseries on ICE, we dig into surveillance and precedent.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Anny and Samantha and welcome to.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Steffan Never told You production of iHeartRadio.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
And welcome back for part three of what I thought
would it be like a two part episode possibly but
now has grown into a mini series. I've done it again.
It's your curse, it is my curse. There's too much happening.
But part three of whatever of our series about ice

(00:38):
and a border patrol as well as DHS. It's all
of them because they're kind of all in one. And
for those of you who are sticking with us, thank you.
I hope you're okay. I hope you're okay. As with before,
we are time stamping this for February eighteenth, twenty twenty six.
Content warning, politics, violation of human rights, separation, abused child,

(00:59):
porn and sexual assaults, in harassment again, violence and death,
and then some that's just overall. Anytime we're talking about
this whole situation in general, there may be brief mentions
here and there. It might just be really boring policy
stuff that is not as boring as you think because
it is life threatening. So at the end of last episode,
we mentioned that the Democrats are trying to negotiate with

(01:21):
the new proposal amount of the eleven billion dollars that
the president is asking for for ice and DHS for
yes in general, like to build more detention centers. What
we found out secretly because all of these news are
popping out after contracts are being completed, and then they're
getting a notice saying, hey, guess what, we're building a
multimillion dollar detention center here that you can't handle and

(01:44):
shouldn't be here. But whatever, the Democrats are trying to
negotiate with them, just for human decency, not even that
it shuts it down, not for less money, not for
anything else. Oh no, just to be better people essentially
and a better group of organizations. Again, though this shouldn't
even need to be a bargaining tool, is something that
has to be done as the agent seem to be

(02:06):
given a lot of leeway and how they operate, so
it should be one of those things that this should
be an obvious but yet it's not. And so we
have to negotiate with lots of money on how they
treat people. I guess before they treat them like nothing
once they're detained, because there's definitely no conversations about that.

(02:26):
It seems whatever As of today, we are currently under
partial shut down as DHS has refused to meet the
requests of the Democratic Party, which means almost nothing when
it comes to ICE and CBB operations. They will continue
their harassment and campaign against the marginalized community and their arrest,

(02:49):
all because of Donald Trump's recent bills that he was
able to get with hardly any pushback. I don't think
any actually, which will continue to fund their work. However,
I want to put this caveat again. We don't want
more money to be added to that already over the
top amount. But we'll see what happens with that. Like

(03:10):
I said February eighteenth, we're still in shutdown mode kind of.
Oh and by the way, they're still working DHS. People
are still working, just without a paycheck. So yeah, except
for the people who are in the big wigs, they
always get their money.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
I love that. And with that, let's talk about the
concerns slash leeway that they're getting and practices of ICE
and CBP. We've talked a lot about the policies and
money being spent on DHS and ICE and CBP, but
today we're talking about the actual practices and incidents happening
by and because of them. It's a lot. There has

(03:50):
been a lot of heated debate on what ICE is
allowed to do, including if they have the right to
kill or injure people without any recourse, which is hilariously
like mind blowing. And I say hilariously loosely because you
would think that shouldn't be a statement in general. But
yet here we are in a country that has allowed
for police brutality and abuse with very little consequence or justice.

(04:11):
It's not surprising to see ICE and CBP have the
same allowance. After the killing of Renee Good, which by
the way, is one of many, this one got really
big because not only because she's a white woman, but
also because the way it happened, why it happened, and
then how the agents responded, as well as the area

(04:32):
it was happening in Minnesota is a hot spot. We
know this so many things, But there had been several
killings in the past, well forever and apparently, and we'll
come back to this in the next episode. I think
twenty twenty five had the highest number of injury and
deaths from what I gather since in detention and in
relation to ICE. Just to put that there with that.

(04:56):
It was one of the high profile cases. Again, we're
going to talk about that case later. And the question
came about how or if the agents would be held
accountable for this death, for the murder. So far they
have not. They have not been held accountable. There's really
no talk about it because another death happened, and then
another death, and then more injuries and then diseases have

(05:16):
happened since then. That it's don't I haven't heard exactly
what is going on or whether they're able to get
any kind of justice for when they good. I know
her brother was able to speak at Congress, so something
is being talked about, doesn't mean there's actual justice happening.
From an article written by CBC, they write, according to

(05:37):
Ruter's legal analysis, federal agents are generally immune from state
prosecution if conducting their official duties at the federal level.
A prosecution would have to deal with the challenge of
proving the officer didn't believe they were potentially facing the
prospect of death or serious injury. In terms of civil litigation,
ICE agents, like police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity

(05:59):
for on the job shootings, though some Democrats would like
to change that. We the people would also like to
change that, as accountability and justice should not be this difficult,
especially when we the constituents, are asking for an investigation
in the matter. But it seems to officials who are
determined to undermine the people, this is a part of

(06:21):
qualified immunity. Again, at this point, we're just asking for
them to look at evidence, right, right, that doesn't seem
like that should be Again, as they would say, if
he's innocent, then okay, so he Shouldn'tah, this should prove
his innocence. Yeah, of course we also know how that

(06:41):
goes unfortunately. Moving on, Vice President Jade Vance stated in
a press conference after the murder of Renee Good that
the agents were protected by absolute immunity. That's what he
said in a CNN article written in January of twenty
twenty six. They discussed whether that statement was true in
this incident. According to Vance, at this time he leaned

(07:03):
into the idea that this was an open shut case
through the rumors of what had happened were just that rumors,
like they were being told things that were not necessarily true,
but they were like from what we gather, she was there,
she was yelling, she got shot she deserved. It is
what they said. I'm putting that loosely. The accusation of
good having a gun at one point, or that she

(07:25):
forcefully tried to rent down the agent so much more
and still are swirling all of these ideals, which, by
the way, she did not have a gun. The videos
would relate that she was not trying to run him over.
But again that video that circulated, including her talking with
the agent, says that she was not mad at him
at one point, seemed to counter these narratives. Again, No,

(07:49):
if she was, like if she was threatening him, I
don't think that's the conversation. And in this video we
also witnessed the agent calling her a after shooting her
point blank. So Vance made this statement at the press conference, saying,
the president here is very simple. You have a federal
law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's
a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity.

(08:13):
He was doing his job. I've never seen anything like that.
It should it would get tossed out by judge. Even
though the State of Minnesota said no, we want to
look into this case.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
Fvance gets my blood boiling. I tell you what just.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
I just love that. That's how you phrased that, because
you sounded very old like I love old school. That
just gets my blood boiling.

Speaker 2 (08:42):
You know me, And you know like all of my
sayings are very old school.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
Yeah, and I love it. I love everybody to.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
So many while professionals, they argue that this type of
community is dangerous and actually not true. Going back to
that CNN article by Devin Cole quote, the idea that
a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit
on the job is absolutely ridiculous, said Michael J. Z. Mannheimer,

(09:12):
a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University's Salomon P.
Chase College of Law. Mannheimer said that more than one
hundred and twenty years of case law on the issue
of so called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal
officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct
taken in the course of their official duties, but that

(09:33):
it's up to the courts to ultimately determine whether they
can be shielded from the charges.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Right now, again, this process could be difficult, probably will
be difficult no matter what state charges. Again would also
be difficult though it does seem that Minnesota may attempt it.
I mean, at some point they need to do something.
If they want to say that they are on the
side of their residence, then they need to. But that's
that's my opinion. Obviously. There are a lot of factors here, however,

(10:02):
including the fact that the crime scene was essentially cleaned
up by the agents very quickly, and they hastily ran
away from most of them, which causes a problem, like
literally within minutes, they cleaned up everything and ran away.
And in regards to the murder of Good, the local
investigator spoke about how the federal officials actually blocked them

(10:23):
from working this case, from looking at the evidence. Here's
what CNN wrote. The decision meant that the Minnesota Bureau
of a Criminal Apprehension, which was planning to jointly investigate
the matter with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, currently has
few tools available to fully scrutinize the shooting and provide
its findings to county prosecutors, who would then determine whether
the agent should face state charges. Without complete access to

(10:47):
the evidence, witnesses, and information collected, we cannot meet the
investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands. BCA
Superintendent Drew Evans said in a statement, So this has
happened twice. Now, this was directly after Renee murder. Alex
Pretty was another one that we will talk about at
a later point. They hastily, like when I say they

(11:08):
bolted out of there, they bolted out of there and
took everything with them and again blocked anybody who would
try to help. They even from what I understand, and
we'll go into more detail about that later, took and
arrested the witnesses. So that should say something. So all
of those things are very concerning and shows that they
can't even go forward to see if he actually acted

(11:31):
in his best interest, in his own protection or protection
of others. It literally looks as if he ran away
because he murdered somebody. Yeah, But to put it simply,
the idea that federal agents like ICE and CBP have
absolute immunity is not true. They can be charged if
they commit a crime, and states can charge them as well,

(11:53):
so it can be on all these levels. However, the
verbiage used in different cases can throw out these cases
and charges. So the way it's being put and how
who is being doing what because they were technically on duty,
it would be pretty easy to throw these charges out.
So this is from protect democracy dot org. They write
the Constitution's subordinates state laws to the federal government under

(12:15):
the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal laws the supreme law
of the land. We can expect federal officers to draw
on a Supreme Court case from eighteen eighty seven in
regards to legal and subsequent lower court cases to argue
that the supremacy Clause immunizes them from state prosecution for
actions taken within their lawful duties as federal officers. Overall,

(12:37):
the judges and this includes federal impellate judges, are the
ones that will determine whether an agent has immunity in
that moment. So there's a whole thing. We know this,
but we can't even get to there, which is part
of the problem. Also a part of the difficulty the
DHS labeling the victims and trying to spread misinformation of

(12:58):
the actions and other victims. So calling them terrorists does
not help the situation, though the mini videos release that
do seem to validate the victims as if they were
truly victims. But again we'll talk about specifics about cases
in a bit Later.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
In January of this year, DHS was caught sending an
internal memo allowing for administrative warrants to enter homes in
private property without the use of judicial oversight. From an
AP News article written by Rebecca Santana quote, the memo
authorizes ice officers to use force to enter residence based
solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone

(13:48):
with a final order of removal, a move that advocates
say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and up ends years
of advice given to immigrant communities.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Right, I mean that's literally in general. I think we've
all heard this and incidents in specifics like you can't
they can't come into your home unless they have an
actual warrant signed by a judge. They do tricks where
they try to pull you out of the house to
get you. We've seen this happen and that's what we
understood it. But now that's kind of being thrown out
the window. So the mimum, which was made public through

(14:19):
a whistleblower complaint, has been hit with some backlash, enough
so that the DHS has denied the contents with defensive
statistics that they provide using Twitter as their research. I mean,
I'm gonna say this way. So I was looking at
their page, which they were like adamant, saying that this
is not a thing. We didn't say that this, this

(14:41):
is a lie. And then they show and as in fact,
it shows that most Americans seventy five percent agree with
they think that we're doing a great job. Blah blah blah.
So and it has a link to the status. I
was like, okay, I gotta look at it. I'll look
kicked again. And it goes to their own rapid response side,
which I'm gonna talk about it again, which just shows
graphs not really any links to those grafts. And I'm like,

(15:03):
what's what's happening? Is this what we're trusting on a
federal site that's their reference? Cool? Cool, I guess again,
it literally refers to their own handle that is used
to respond quickly, like they get very defensive and they
know they have to be very quick to respond so
they can try to squash any truths. I guess, any

(15:25):
rumors as well by saying no, oh, this is not
one right, not suspicious at all. And some more information
about the memo from that ap article, they write. The memos,
signed by the Acting Director of ICE, todd Lyons, dated
May twelfth, twenty twenty five, says, although the US Department
of Homeland Security has not historically relied on administrative warrants

(15:48):
alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal
in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General
Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration
and Nationality Act immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on
administrative warrants for this purpose.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
And they did get a response in an email form
from the DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
She said the officers issuing those warrants have also found
probable calls for the person's arrest. She said the Supreme
Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants
in cases of immigration enforcement. Without elaborating, McLaughlin did not
respond to questions about whether ICE officers entered a person's
home since the memo was issued relying solely on an

(16:36):
administrative warrant, and if so, how often.

Speaker 1 (16:39):
Right, So, they're playing a lot of dodging like they
are the.

Speaker 2 (16:45):
They're the masters of fear.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Yeah, in this situation of if that was a dodgeball,
they won. They won. So the American Immigration Council wrote
an article specifically talking about the differences in the administrations,
and they said, this is about the administrative warrants quote
underpass administration SIS. Warrantless immigration arrest of non citizens living
in the United States usually happened in the context of
quote collateral arrests. Agents would look for one person that

(17:08):
identified in advance as being in violation of immigration law,
but would encounter others at the same location who they
had probable cause to believe were also in violation of
immigration law. Administrations have taken different approaches to collateral arrests.
Both the Obama and Biden administrations implemented strict restrictions on
the use of collateral immigration arrests. Collateral arrests were broadly

(17:30):
permitted under the first Trump administration, though the Castaignan nove
litigations set limits on when they could be used. Because
the second Trump administration will often stop and question people
at random without any specific target in the first place,
the distinction between collateral arrests and other arrests has faded.
A January twenty twenty six mimimo from ICE director Todd

(17:51):
Lyons explicitly directs supervisors to issue an administrate warrant in
real time for someone who has already been stopped and
questioned if ICE has probable cause to believe the person
is removable, so agents can then make an arrest. So
it's talk first, profile and then do the warrant after
they've already arrested them.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
Yeah, and they go on to talk about the memo
we just mentioned quote. Furthermore, that same memo radically expands
ICE's definition of who constitutes a person likely to escape
and can therefore be arrested without an administrative warrant. Under
the January twenty twenty sixth memo, the Trump administration redefines

(18:32):
flight risk. Specifically, ICE declares that anyone who might not
wait at the scene of their encounter with immigration agents
for a warrant to be created should be considered likely
to escape. In other words, if an agent who has
stopped someone on a street corner to ask for their
papers believes that the person would walk away before the
agent had a chance to fill out an administrative warrant

(18:54):
and get it approved, they can skip the administrative warrant
and arrest them on the spot.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Right, and this is what we call catch twenty two.
Like literally, right here, an impossible situation for those who
are being profiled. And we're going to talk about that
and speaking of in just a second. However, again, want
to put in this conversation how much authority we are
giving ice to make these choices, like if you so choose,

(19:24):
if you do, especially for agents who have been very
little trained, Like literally, we understand that they are the
least trained in law enforcements like the Department of Juvenile
Justice in the State of Georgia, who are considered probation
officers have more training, hm, who actually consider social workers
in a lot of ways, case workers have more training

(19:47):
than this, who carry weapons and have these big decisions
to make. Yeah, and we I'm not gonna lie. Don't
think they have good critical thinking skills when it comes
to making these choices. No, I don't think so again
my opinion. Moving on again back to that conversation about
being profiled. Yep, they do that too. Last year, the

(20:08):
Supreme Court made a temporary ruling that allows for race
and ethnicity as a basis in detaining or interrogating someone
now according to their fact sheet, y'all, I've been on
their fact sheet. I've been on their sides a little
too much lately. The DHS writes this, given the unique
nature of parts of DHS's mission, most notably in protecting
our borders and securing our skies, some DHS activity is

(20:30):
not covered by the policy. This does not mean that
officers and agents are free to profile. To the contrary,
DHS's existing policies make it categorically clear that profiling is prohibited,
while articulating limited circumstances where it is permissible to rely
in part on these characteristics because of the unique nature
of border and transportation securities as compared to traditional law enforcements.

(20:55):
That's a really fantacy wave, like no, we don't want
you to, but if there's a small chance, go for it.
But we didn't tell you to do that. They do
explicitly write that there are narrow or strict usages of
racial profiling, but again, there means they're allowed to do this,
and we have to assume that on good fate, that

(21:19):
people are gonna make better choices, which again I don't
think we've seen evidence to that. When it comes to
ice and CVP No, I don't. I don't think so. So.
Brookings wrote a response to the Supreme Court decision in
October twenty twenty five, and they explain what the impact
will be for immigrants and refugees. They write specifically, the

(21:39):
scota's decision allows IC use the following criteria when making
investigative stops. The type of location at which they are
found such as car washer, bus stop, the type of
job they appeared to work, whether they speak Spanish or
English with an accent in their parent race or ethnicity.
I feel like that is profiling no in just to me, Yeah,

(22:02):
these are the specifications that are allowed. These narrow margins.
Those are really big narrow margins because essentially I could
have an accent because we all are considered to have
an accent. Do we know what they're implying? Yes?

Speaker 2 (22:14):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:16):
The ruling goes in depth of the harms that this
type of ruling could and has caused, whether it's a
risk the health literally like they're published the act before
they went away, HSS, which is the Federal Health Department,
talked about the mental health and stress and physical health
that the types of ruling has on people, specifically from

(22:39):
the refugee immigrant communities. And I'm gonna tell you, as
a person who has been naturalized and could have been
is considered an immigrant, Yeah, I'm losing it. I'm losing
all of my hair and sleep, and my anxieties is
at a peak. So every time I turn around the
fact that I have to carry my passport at all

(22:59):
times and I'm worried about renewing and what would happen
if I try to renew it and whether it be revoked.
It's stressful. But for those who are especially in the
Latino community, Latino community, yeah in Nenza, and those who
are even just working who came here to get to
that point, I can't imagine. People have talked about the
fact that they have not left their house. They're not

(23:21):
able to do anything in fear. We saw the video
of the young kids running away when they thought there
was ice at a bus stop, like that in itself.
When we talk about the toll that this is taking
on a group of people, at a massive group of people,
and how this is grotesque, like I can't even find

(23:42):
the words because there's no real words to describe how
bad this is and what kind of evil it takes
to do these two people, but whatever, that is also
my opinion. Moving on, something else that has been worth
criticizing is the issue of no due process with orders
from DHS, which is being carried out. Just for clarification.

(24:05):
This is what the IRC rights as due process. Due
process is a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
It protects people against arbitrary government decisions and ensures fairness
in legal matters. Both citizens and non citizens in the
US have the right to do process, a chance to
defend their rights, and to have a fair hearing. So

(24:25):
it's important to note that in April twenty twenty five,
the Supreme Court did of reaffirm that it was quote
a fundamental right to do process which extends to everyone
in America, regardless of their legal status. So they really
did say, even though they all went back and forth,
but they all unanimous said, but everyone, no matter their status,

(24:46):
is allowed for due process. They have the right to
do that. So they said it. The most right reaching,
absurd Supreme Court that is empower right now has said,
e yeah, yeah, non citizens they can. They should have
new process as well. We agree with that. Okay, so
that's established. However, in an executive order to bypass this,

(25:13):
they allowed dhs to detain into port without having to
go before an immigration judge.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Still yeah, and in general, the administration has made it
a lot harder for immigrants to get legal counsel. Here's
a bit of information from via dot org quote. The
Trump administration's expanded use of detention and rapid deportations will
drastically reduce the likelihood that people will be able to
secure legal representation to help them navigate their case. Lawyers

(25:42):
and the immigrant defense infrastructure that has grown over decades
to protect immigrants' rights has also come under attack. Trump
has issued an executive order accusing immigration attorneys of fraud
and threatening them with investigations and sanctions. Has also gutted
funding for critical legal services that help people facing detention
and deportation. The US Department of Justice ordered legal service

(26:05):
providers to cease work on critical programs, including the Legal
Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helped Desk, the Family Group
Legal Orientation Program, the Council for Children Initiative, and the
National Qualified Representative Program, which represents people in detention who
a judge has determined cannot competently represent themselves because of

(26:26):
mental illness. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has also canceled
the Unaccompanied Children program, which was representing twenty six thousand
children who arrived to the United States without a parent.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
So, as we talked about in past episodes, and we
talked about the fact that they refused as billions of
dollars come into their hands, none of that went to
this as in fact, they have all been cut. There
was no reason to cut this. They have money. They
have money, and they're asking for more money.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
Mm hmm. It got to build a ballroom, Samantha.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
This is where I'm like, this is evil. You purposely
made it hard, and you made it for those who
are coming the right way, quote unquote. And I put
this very sarcastically because it makes me angry in this
conversation to that to be deterred in being able to
come about the people who have already probably contributed so
much to our community. Yeah, but I digress. With all

(27:26):
of that, he has laid off many immigration staff and judges,
causing more chaos and substantial delays in the system. So
those who are even trying the layoffs that was supposed
to help us, guess what, it's not helping US. Yes,
obviously this was on purpose, and instead we see a
great amount of funding going into inhumane detention centers that

(27:48):
are not safe nor suitable for humans at all. Again,
we'll get to that a little bit later. And though
it may seem that there was a small victory when
the Supreme Court did rule that everyone had the right

(28:09):
to do process, we can clearly see that the undermining
of the current administration has been overwhelming and has been working.
And speaking of undermining, let's talk about how people who
do not have to wear anything to identify law enforcements
credentials are also allowed to cover up their face and
the name of protection are just doing what they want
without any accountability. So, according to the New York Bart Organization,

(28:34):
the Law organization is against the Federal regulations all of this, well,
not necessarily the masks, but the non identifiers. From their
press release, they wrote, the Code of Federal Regulations provision
with governing the conduct of Immigration Officers require that at
the time of the rest, the designated immigration officer shall,
as soon as it is practical and safe to do so,

(28:56):
identify himself or herself as an immigration officer who is
authorized to make the arrest justice police officers are routinely
required to identify themselves as law enforcement and to display
identifying information such as their name and badge number. Federal
law enforcement officers likewise have a responsibility to safeguard the
rights and safety of anyone under their authority by ensuring

(29:20):
a means of accountability and allowing recourse to the course
to challenge any unlawful conduct. Sounds pretty simple. They've got
billions of dollars. Why not put it in an actual
uniform and identification. Yeah, you think, And yet they have
not followed these regulations. And the next question we had

(29:42):
to ask, why are they allowed to cover up their
identity and their faces like all the things. Essentially, the
DHS claims they are allowed to do so because of
the fear of doxing an agent, which honestly, I will
say I have seen happen. Doxing is not great. Yeah,
it is the It is against the law all of

(30:03):
those things. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are
allowed to do uh whatever they want covering their face,
not having to identify themselves and being able to do whatever,
also to not knowing who they are and being held
accountable is not the same thing. As doxing. Just because

(30:25):
we know your name, that is not doxing. Just because
we know what you look like, that is not doxing.
Could it get there? Has it gotten there? Sure? Do
we have heroes that don't wear caps that might identify
on dating apps who was ICE agents? Maybe? Is that bad?

(30:49):
I don't think so. I don't think that's doxing either.
You're just saying do you know who you're dating? So
there have been several reports of people impersonating ICE agents
to threaten or even harm people as of late, again
back to that press release by the NYC, bar allowing

(31:12):
massed ICE agents to conduct detentions also make it increasingly
likely that third party actors will impersonate federal agents and
use their anonymity to subject vulnerable population to harassment and
violence under the parent color of law. In recent months,
ICE agents have regularly refused to present warrants when requested.
Coupled with the new practice of face coverings during detentions,

(31:35):
it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish the conduct of an
imposture from that of an authorized agent. Even before the
apparent mass policy went into effect, arising crimes perpetuated by
individuals impersonating ice agents and other law enforcement officers, including harassment,
left extortions, assault, battery, sexual assault, and kidnapping was being

(31:55):
reported tragically at this writing. The suspect and the recent
shootings of men so to state legislators and their spouses
too fatally allegedly disguised himself as a police officer when
approaching them at their respective residencies at the time of
the attacks. So I have seen video upon video upon

(32:17):
video of people putting on a vest which you can
easily get anywhere, saying they are agents because they don't
have necessarily the badges that they need. They're just covering
up their face. They don't have actual uniforms typically like
they kind of but they don't, and they're driving unmarked cars.
So it makes it impossible to really believe who is

(32:39):
what and who isn't. And there's been incidents where people
are violated and just racist people who just want to
threaten and feel powerful, which is to those people few
like what the fuck moving on? Currently? A part of
the negotiations that are not happening as in like is
because we're shut down. But this is what they're asking

(33:00):
is that agents are not allowed to hide their faces,
which the DHS is not agreeing to, even though technically
is not a policy for agents to be in masks,
Like that's not something that is a thing there. And
again just to put this like asterisks, like most of
those people who love ICE are the same people who
hate in masks during COVID Yeah, and actually banned masks. Yeah,

(33:30):
saving lives, no taking lives yeah m hm yep. Anyway,
so that is something that needs in conversation. Another issue
of concerned with ICE is a collaboration with local law
enforcement and with the national reserves, with the agencies.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Yes, currently Trump is using the two to eighty seven
G program for ICE to use local law enforcement at
this time. And what is two eighty seven G. Here's
bit from NPR dot org quote. The program, established in
nineteen ninety six, allows state and local law enforcement officers
to act as immigration enforcement agents. That means questioning, investigating,

(34:12):
and in some cases arresting people for civil immigration violations.
Authority traditionally reserved for federal officers.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
So there are fourteen hundred and twelve agreements that are
currently active, with one thousand, one hundred and thirty that
were signed in twenty twenty five. So Trump really pushed
this to a new level. And NBR just also wrote
down how this program works. So one day jail enforcement model,
which allows for officers who bring in anybody and everybody

(34:41):
to be checked for their citizenships, no matter the charge.
So you got a ticket you can't pay all, we're
going to check you. Like any minor things, child support, neglect, sure,
we're going to check that too. So all of those things.
Same with warrants that are being served. I will tell
you when I worked at DJJ and I actually refused

(35:03):
to do it. We were supposed to call and this
was under Obama, so this has been in place. They
asked us to call a report to Immigration anybody who
is undocumented, but yeah, I refuse to do that. So
same thing with Lawrence. I know that corrections officers and
probation officers have been told to do so as well.

(35:27):
Any officer can check and make arrest for immigration violations.
So if they think you're violating this just to podunk,
sheriff's office deputy can assist and actually arrest you. I
will say, in the state of Georgia, there has been
immigration enforcement task force that have been plucked from the

(35:47):
local agencies at the very least, though those people were trained,
actually trained twice. So but do I I get no,
but they were actually trained our lost friends. Yes. And
with that, the National Guard has also been placed as
assistant to ICE and CBP. We know Trump has sent
guards to Portland, Oregon based on false information because he's

(36:11):
not smart enough to not realize that all the videos
on social media are not true. Oh no, I'm on
a list. I'm on a list for sure. We're gonna
talk about that in a minute. Yeah. So, and he
has continued to threaten to send many more. Some have
welcomed it. Georgia's state governor Kemp's like, yeah, bring him
down here, let's do it. Mm hmmm. We have a

(36:35):
governorshace happening soon, which is why Trump is actually here. Now,
did you know that he's working?

Speaker 2 (36:39):
I know he's here. He's in North Georgia, right, mm hmm.
It's horrible, I know, mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (36:50):
There's also a lot of protests happening in Georgia. So
at least good news bad news. And but we've just
seen a countermove. Governor Tim Walls of Minnesota sent the
state National Guards as well. They were trying to ease
some of the tensions. And I will say they weren't
necessarily there to protect the like those who are protesting,
but they were there to kind of help out the

(37:12):
situation because they were also afright for their citizens, like
they're like, wait, wait, this is what's happening. I did
see several videos of the reservists bringing goods like food
and such to the protesters, trying to like buy back
some goodwill. I've not seen a lot of them, but
a few. I will say a lot of the stuff
that's happening in Minnesota has been muted, and of course

(37:35):
that's on purpose. And though there's claims we're gonna talk
about this later but that they're pulling out people, they
really haven't. And then there are also the concerns that
DHS and ICE are spying on everyone, including those who
they considered to be citizens, like we are actual people
who've born here, who have family here. They are spying

(37:56):
on YouTube, they we are being spied upon. Of course
that we've talked about this a lot. It's been happening
for a while the government has given a lot oflyway
to social media companies to allow for this, so they
could tap in we knew what was happening with all
of these safeguarding for children laws. Guess what it's not
for children? Moving on, just recently, reports have been coming

(38:19):
out on DHS demanding data from major sites including Google, Facebook,
and Discord, and several of them have sent in the
data as requested from The New York Times, who first
published the news. They said in recent months, Google, Reddit, Discord,
and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have received hundreds
of administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security, According
to for government officials and tech employees privy to the request,

(38:43):
They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are
not authorized to speak publicly. Google Meta and Read It
complied with some of the requests, the government officials said.
In the subpoenas, the department asked the companies for identifying
details or accounts that do not have a real person's
need to attach and that have criticized ICE or pointed
to the locations of ICE agents. The New York Times

(39:04):
saw two subpoenas that were sent to Meta over the
last six months. So let's be clear, these companies did
not have to comply, and yet Google Meta and Read
it did handing over information include anything that may be
criticizing or opposing ICE. Wow, that is horrifying. That is horrifying.

(39:26):
These multi billion dollar companies who want your business, our business,
and we use these things as well, by the way,
just freely gave over their customers information specifically because they
opposed something that we see that many see as inhumane

(39:47):
and illegal. They did this. DHS again has taken a
lot of liberties to invade the privacy of users of
all of these apps with the use of protecting ICE agents.
And this is neither just the beginning. This is neither
the beginning nor just the end. Like we're full on

(40:09):
in it. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (40:12):
And to explain the use of these warrants, the New
York Times writes, quote, Unlike arrest warrants, which required judges' approval,
administrative subpoenas are issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
They were only sparingly used in the past, primarily to
uncover the people behind social media accounts engaged in serious
crimes such as child trafficking, said tech employees familiar with

(40:33):
the legal tool, But last year the Department ramped up
its use of subpoenas to unmask anonymous social media accounts.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
Can we have that moment? This was originally used for
child trafficking, and now that narrative has turned to anyone
opposing the government. I think we've talked a lot about
this with Bridget and we saw it coming.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yeah, we've been saying it. A lot of us have
been saying it the way.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
I want to throw all electronics. But at the same time,
I'm so codependent. Our job is based on of us.

Speaker 2 (41:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
Yeah, even sites like military dot Com, which I was
really like, wait what, they're questioning this and have concerns
enough to look into the New York Times article as
well as contenting the ACLU over the instances like this,
and even the individual company. So social media companies didn't
look in researching because this is a precedent that's going

(41:30):
to change everything. This has been a precedent that's changing everything.
We should say and in regards to individual privacy and
even the most like right leaning individual they I know
will be concerned. My father, my brother who said they
didn't want a smartphone or a Google in their house,
or Alexa saying they listen to us. They are listening

(41:52):
to us. It is your administration that you voted for family. Sorry,
y'all just got lost in my own sadness, all right,
which leads to the question, with this type of interference
in breach of privacy, are they keeping a list? As
one agent told an observer. So in January, legal representatives
were watching the movements of ICE. One agent actually was

(42:14):
seen recording and taking pictures of their cars, and when
asked what he was doing, he stated that they had
a quote nice little database, and now you're considered a
domestic terrorist. He was real giddy in telling her this.
If y'all ever heard this recording, it's like, Aha, guess what.
And though the spokesperson, again Tritian McLaughlin, stated there was
no such thing, others are reporting that there was. From

(42:37):
a Yahoo dot com article about the incident, quote, Independent
journalist Ken Klippenstein reported today that an unnamed federal law
enforcement official told him that DHS quote has ordered immigration
officers to gather at identifying information about anyone filming them.
Now we know that Trump has been using the term
domestic terrorists for anyone who is opposed to his policies
or his actions, calling that an American anti Christian all

(42:59):
of these things was like, wait, what because I feel
like that's real Christian to be like, hey, let's stop
hurting our neighbors. Can we love our neighbors? But yet
to say that that's bad is anti Christian. Weird jump
but okay, And here we know that he has been

(43:19):
wanting something like this. He loves the good list of
all of his enemies. That's he would say. He is
a petty jerk. The current ICE director, Todd Lyons, has
denied such a database exists, but many disagree. One researcher
wrote this on Blue Sky and he actually researches for

(43:40):
Cato Institute, and he said he quote either one perjured
himself or two has no idea what's going on in
his own agency, because all those facial recognition shots they're
taking of people on the streets of the country are
going somewhere besides the agent's smartphone. Yes, why are they
asking for all of this information if they don't have
a data base, Where's who who's keeping this fun little

(44:04):
list that one agent doubtful. I don't think he's that organized.
Let's be real honest, So this h that's information. Fetscoop
dot com had a whole article about this, and well,
and they had pulled that post up from Blue Sky,
and I think it's a good conversation to have because
you can't say there's nothing there if you're collecting data.

Speaker 2 (44:23):
Yeah, like where is it going?

Speaker 1 (44:24):
Then, like you're specifically requesting for social media companies to
give you names and addresses of people opposing these types
of policies and you say there's no database. Yeah, weird.
And with contracts like companies like Flock, who has been
working in tandem with Ice to identify license plates on

(44:46):
the road as well as other identifiers, it's hard to
believe that they're not doing exactly that. Even though they're
like they're just trying to get the violent criminals, there
has not been that many, like literally a handful of
violent criminals have been taken, and you know, you would
know because they would say it very loudly. So they've
been able to talk about two, I think, folent criminals
and then they made out the rest. He's definitely violently,

(45:09):
He've got tattoos. Interesting take. Interesting take. What I didn't
also talk about was the usage of data from medicaid
and Medicare sites, which I was like, oh, you know,
we'll hold off because it wasn't just to find immigrants
and refugees because they got that though they went through

(45:29):
and paid taxes. FYI. But all that to say, but
they do collect a lot of information from those types
of sites and any of the government bases, and they
have been able to locate a lot of immigrants through
go government sites that show that they pay taxes. Man,
I'm getting really heated. I'm gonna stop now. But that

(45:51):
is thus far in this conversation of what is going on,
we're actually going into outside of the policies and the
ways that I in CBP have working. We're going to
talk about the concerns that is happening in the actual
things that again we are doing or people are doing
to fight against this administration as well as ice hopefully

(46:12):
in the next episode, next last episode.

Speaker 2 (46:15):
Of this unintentional mini series. It is a lot to unpack.
But I believe that we're also going to take a
break before that one comes out.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
Yes, because we have a lot of things this February.
There's also good things to celebrate. When we talked about
joy and enjoying things as a way of resistance, and
we're going to do that.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
Yes. So Part four coming in March probably probably yes,
but it will be coming. And as always, listeners, thanks
for sticking with us. I hope you are well. Let
us know if you have any thoughts, if you've seen

(46:55):
any of what's going on, we would love to hear
from you. You can email us at Hello at Stuffmannever
Told You dot com. You can find us on blue
Sky at mob stuff podcast, or on Instagram and TikTok
at stuff I Never Told You. We're also on YouTube.
We have some merchandise at Cotton Bureau, and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books.
Thanks as always too, our super producial Christina, our executive Prusa,

(47:18):
and our contributor Joey.

Speaker 1 (47:19):
Thank you and thanks to you for listening.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Stuff Never Told You is prediction of my Heart Radio.
For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, you can check
out the heart Radio app, app a podcast, or reeve
you listen to your favorite shows.