1 comment

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

They are still reviewing the records of the other 2400 detainees...614 this is what like only 20 percent..

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That’s gotta be lower than the national average.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    It's even worse if they're using "criminal record" the same way the FBI has historically (arrested but not necessarily convicted on a felony charge).

    I don't have up to date numbers, but c.2016 the FBI considered ~29% of Americans to have a criminal record.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    This is bad enough, but we also know they're not touching actual criminals (they fight back). So they're very explicitly going after the lowest-hanging fruit possible.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Did people think they were rounding up criminals?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I want to know what fraction of a percent, if any, had felonies. Most of the time when they toughted someone was a criminal it ended up being a traffic ticket.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There have been legitimate reports of immigrants being caught up in this ICE fiasco because a cheque bounced decades ago.

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

    yeah its like they constantly lie through their teeth and even the rare time they are technically not lying it is such a stretch and so disingenuous that it is still massively dishonest. Its like they are at best a stopped clock with truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The detained are the most non combative people. An old white person would throw a fit and slap box the shit out of ice officers.

  • source
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I want to believe this but there is absolutely no evidence, provided by this article, to back this up.

    Why wouldn't you link the filing you are supposedly quoting?

    *Edit:

    On my phone. There is a link to a a Chicago Tribune article in the section past where they initially referenced the data.

    I had clicked a couple of links where OP's article referenced the DoJ data and they were just references to other articles in its own publication.

    I guess I gave up too early.

    On that note though, how about OP just post the original article instead of this derivative trash article?

    It has been so easy for people to generate bullshit news articles for manufactured news aggregates that reference circulary, for the purpose of obscuring the truth,.or creating wedge issues.

    So now, if I don't recognize the publisher, and it is setup like this one, I immediately smell bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment