64
JB Pritzker Accuses ICE of ‘Harassing People for Not Being White’ Amid Chicago Immigration Crackdown (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/illinois@midwest.social
1 comment fedilink hide all child comments

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 year ago

I thought they were allowed to do just that now. Didn't the supreme court say it was fine?

Despicable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    35 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 59 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    He ain't wrong. But there's still a big question of what he's going to do about it.

    Will the Chicago PD defend its citizens from this unlawful armed incursion? Will the Illinois National Guard step up? Can the citizens defend themselves from this authoritarian violence? And will Pritzker lead his people in opposition to a military occupation of their largest city?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think he should dispatch Illinois National Guard units for each Federal officer in his city, 1:1. Their only orders should be to trail ICE and other officers with body cams. Do not do anything else. Stream it online, on real time. Make sure people know what is happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 31 points 1 year ago

    This is not an "Immigration Crackdown," this is an invasion of your own peaceful city. Patrolling tourist areas is only trying to hurt the city.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 18 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Didnt the supreme court literally green light this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    No. They said he can activate the NG but they can only protect federal buildings which is why everywhere they're deployed they're just circling around a handful of buildings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Paywall, if you want to support the times provide the relevant text and we can talk about it though what is available before the block specifically says it isn't final quick means its lawfulness is indeterminate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    It means the racial profiling got a rubber stamp, and “we will figure out the legality later.”

    No one is saying they determined it was legal. They simply hand waved the issue in the short term.

    Think of it like this. If cops started arresting people for saying “I don’t like cheese” and the cases got to the Supreme Court, and they said “nah it’s all good keep doing it until we hear arguments on it” that would be akin to what happened here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Didnt the supreme court literally green light this

    That answer is no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I’m sorry, did they say “no you have to stop” or did they say “yeah you can keep going” because only one of those happened.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'm sorry that just isn't how the legal system in this country works.

    Even if the court said "come on stop it guys" it would have no legal force until it's clearly established which is generally after finality ie. all appeals are exhausted or expired.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I’m sorry, what? Are you confused as to how things get to the Supreme Court? It’s here because of an appeal.

    Lower courts said “yeah no, this shit is illegal, stop it” and the Supreme Court said “well we are going to look at this, so you can keep doing things the way you were until we do.”

    The Supreme Court could also have said “well, we are going to look at this, so you have to stop until we do.”

    Using your logic, they shouldn’t be doing it because a lower court ruled it illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That is not the only way it gets to the supreme court, it's a way. And yes, that would mean they are not exhausted and thusly it isn't settled case law for most purposes.

    Cool, and they could have issued an injunction, that isn't typically a supreme court deal. The supreme court intentionally stays out of minor procedurals especially when they aren't asked to.

    That's an injunction bud.

    No, they shouldn't be doing it because it's immoral. No one was granted an injunction. Why are you upset about the supreme court not doing something it isn't expected or intended to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don’t know how else to explain to you that you are simply incorrect in this instance. Bottom line, the Supreme Court made a temporary ruling stating that ICE could continue to stop people based on racial profiling.

    Do literally 2 seconds of googling and you can confirm it: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/

    Take a full minute and you might even find the actual order.

    Split hairs on the wording all you want, the fact is that you’re just wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    It's not a temporary ruling. They're allowing it to continue because no one secured an injunction.

    Just as an fyi scotusblog is on no way related to SCOTUS.

    You could read your own link, there's that.

    Monday’s order by the Supreme Court puts Frimpong’s ruling on hold while the Trump administration’s appeals continue. In an opinion agreeing with the decision to grant the government’s request for a stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized what he characterized as the narrow role of judges in immigration cases. Judges, he wrote, “may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure,” he stressed, “that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes.”

    SCOTUS says "that's not is us dawg".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So, the part where they granted a stay… means nothing?

    There didn’t need to be a injunction. The lower courts ruled it illegal. They were forced to stop. The Trump admin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the Trump admin a stay until the appeal is heard. They were then allowed to continue.

    Long story short, the Supreme Court allowed racial profiling to continue.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I’m genuinely confused on where your confusion is coming from.

    Let me ask a question that might clear this up: Had the Supreme Court done literally nothing, would ICE be allowed to racially profile people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It means the motion for injunction is denied and the last ruling carries. It's also specifically not a new ruling.

    It did for this stay to exist given that it's a denial of injunction. Yes, that's how a stay works. It is amusing that you're talking down to me about not reading it but it's quite clear you've both not read what you've provided nor are you actually familiar with the subject you're talking about.

    Correct, until they rule on it. Again that's how a stay works.

    It's not difficult, you just don't know what you're talking about but confident morons abound so here we are.

    Yes. It's not clearly established until it's ruled on by the supreme court or ruled by a lower court and the supreme court reviews and affirms it.

    Seriously, we could have a conversation but you chose a flight you're clearly not prepared for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    … Yes. It’s obvious that’s how a stay works. The stay that the Supreme Court decided to give.

    And no. If it hadn’t gone to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court had decided to not review it, ICE would not be allowed to racially profile.

    Literally no one is saying the Supreme Court said it was legal. We are saying the Supreme Court allowed it.

    The lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The stay was to prevent that lower court ruling.

    You’re splitting hairs on wording.

    I’m done. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith here. Literally all news sources and legal reviews of the situation agree, meanwhile you’re being intentionally obtuse.

    Good day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    The stay that the Supreme Court decided to give.

    Is there an end to that sentence or what?

    If it hadn't gone before the court yeah, that didn't happen it was immediately appealed.

    And if crocodiles were bananas they might grow on trees. It has nothing to do with reality but fuck it, I guess we're just tossing out what ifs like they matter. They did not allow it, federal law might allow it, a lower court said it's not allowed and the supreme court is saying we don't know, we want to hear it until then continue what you were doing before. They're just not preventing it because the fed says things would be irreparably harmed and the other movent did not provide a good enough argument for an injunction.

    You could say the federal government is allowing it and you'd be right.

    You could say a bad argument allowed it, you can't say taking no action is the same as taking an action when it comes to judgements and rulings.

    You're mad at a flawed legal system that overwhelmingly favors the state which is reasonable. In this case there actually doing it by the book and that's what we actually want.

    You’re splitting hairs on wording.

    When speaking of legalities?! Gosh golly I wonder if linguistics and phraseology matter in the legal system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 1 year ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Pretty much everyone already understands that but it's good to see politicians say it out loud for a change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    In their opinion, the best of all reasons to harrass someone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Chicago and all the places need to do construction in front of every facility used by ice. Get it torn up and if federal road funds come through then get it fixed up if the weather cooperates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Schools? No, that won't be federal. Healthcare? No that won't be federal. Social Security? You guessed it, that won't be federal.

    Racial, sexual, gender repression? Oh yeah we are going international with that shit. We will wreck your economy, and ours, to make you more racist.

    God bless the United States of America

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Isn't that like half their job–the other half being kidnappings terrorism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The ICE campaign of terror is not a distraction, in the sense that it is meant to draw attention away from something else. It is a primary ambition -- perhaps the primary ambition -- of this administration. Remember those "MASS DEPORTATION NOW" signs people were holding up at the Republican National Convention?

    It is also unsympathetic to those being abused by ICE to call their plight a "distraction". No! It's something we need to pay attention to and put a stop to!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I'm getting a bit fed up with this, if I'm honest. We know he's a kiddie-fiddler, as probably are most powerful people, and no-one apparently cares enough to do anything about it now. Why does anyone think releasing the files will change that?

    Let's focus on the shit he's doing right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent