this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
228 points (99.1% liked)

politics

22131 readers
4039 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

ICE is going to regret when those start protecting themselves in their own home.

[–] sneaky@r.nf 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Probably not as much as the people trying to protect their families. Average household 4-6 people inside? They'll send 24 then. Double that after the first agent casualty.

[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

You be surprised what a family will do. Also ICE doesn’t have that many agents and there’s more community getting involved where ICE can’t drive down the street. Remember the people have more power.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don't have infinite agents. If they start sending one or two dozen agents to arrest one person, rather than the 2-6 they are sending now, that means they will be making less arrests overall.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Given that this would lead to slightly less arrests but significantly more deaths, I'm not sure how this would be considered a win.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
  1. It would lead to significantly less arrests if they needed double or triple the agents to conduct them "safely".
  2. More people will die only if agents or their victims start shooting on general principle. In either case, that's a backslide that isn't really a consequence of putting more agents on one person.
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

More people will die only if agents or their victims start shooting on general principle

What do you think is going to happen when dozens of agents start raiding homes without a warrant?