this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
334 points (99.7% liked)

politics

25872 readers
3177 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
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 43 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 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?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 31 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 18 points 17 hours ago

There’s a section in the IL constitution that creates a “state guard,” which can be activated by the governor, separate from National Guard.

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

The CPD has a reputation of authoritarian violence

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 24 points 18 hours 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.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Didnt the supreme court literally green light this?

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 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.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -2 points 49 minutes ago (1 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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 minutes ago (1 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.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Didnt the supreme court literally green light this

That answer is no.

[–] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

well a court did but IDK if I'd call them supreme, they human like us, hint hint nudge nudge

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

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

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

[–] blave@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)
[–] CreativeShotgun@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Eh, you try being brown and see how you feel about this being labeled as a simple "distraction"

[–] forrcaho@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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!