When you can tell the talking points are not all they are cracked up to be.

An article that makes many assumptions, without much to back it.

Welcome to Executive Dysfunction

Before signing off on any new dollars for the Department of Homeland Security, Democrats have put forth a list of 10 demands they want Republicans to meet in an effort to rein in a rogue Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. This question has already spurred fights on social media, where some progressives are excoriating the Democrats for not asking for nearly enough, and others are praising these proposals as pragmatic solutions that will make a real difference. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

So to start with, the author suggests that these outrageous demands that are DOA are not only actually pragmatic, but may not actually go far enough. This opinion comes from a place of ignorance, gaslighting, and partisanship. The Democrats are demanding literal changes to the law and fundamental changes to how federal law enforcement works as well as how the constitution is written. Much of this confuses former Biden policy (which did not follow the law) as actually being the law, while chastising the Trump administration for literally following the law, which they somehow believe is not following the law.

Democrats want to prohibit DHS officers from entering private property without a judicial warrant. This is something that’s technically already against the law.

Actually there is no technical argument here. The fact is that administrative warrants are perfectly legal and are just different from a judicial warrant. They are used primarily to arrest someone who is a known fugitive. The main limitation of the administrative warrant is that you cannot search and seize anything and if that was the purpose, then yes, you need a judicial warrant. Most of the administrative warrants are provided for people who have some form of deportation order, meaning they have had their due process. Democrats want to muddy up the water and basically require that an illegal alien be given unlimited chances of due process, something no American citizen has. The author goes on to treat the situation as if there is no such thing as an administrative warrant, and pretends these people are being arrested with no warrant what-so-ever. This is either ignorance or plain old gaslighting?

Also baked into this demand is a requirement that ICE officers verify that a person is not a U.S. citizen before holding them in immigration detention, as has reportedly happened countless times in recent months.

Countless is actually a strong word when there is a number being tossed around. That number is apparently approximately 170 according to GenAI, and that includes Americans who were detained because of obstruction and attacks on law enforcement. Given DHS has arrested approximately 230,000 during these recent raids (about 2.5 million others have been deported or self deported), that is actually a pretty good error rate. In fact, this means that 99.9993% of their arrests were legitimate arrests of illegals, and we do not know how many of the 170 were just mistakes, versus people who put themselves in a position of being arrested. Of course others will scream that it is higher, possibly by several hundred. However given the scope and the reality that people are arrested and let go every day by police, I would argue this is overstated as an issue.  I would guess that most police forces would be extremely happy with that sort of accuracy rate with the people they arrest. They might be happy if the problematic number was ten times higher.

Democrats want to prohibit DHS funds from being used to conduct enforcement near sensitive locations, including medical facilities, schools, child care centers, churches, polling places, and courts. If Republicans agree to this proposal, Shuchart said, it would be an enormous change in current policy.

Again, there seems to be a disconnect between the fact that ICE and Border Control are actual law enforcement like any other law enforcement (albeit better trained and better paid than most). Police are allowed at medical facilities, schools, and courts. Sheriffs are allowed in these places. Same for troopers, FBI, marshals, etc... Why does the left want to undermine one specific branch of law enforcement and somehow treat them like they are beneath all the rest? Because this fits their narrative that DHS agents are not really law enforcement. It's not true to any degree. Not even 1% true. But they push it like gospel.

Democrats also want to bar DHS officers from detaining people based on their ethnicity, spoken language, accent, or place of work. In September, the Supreme Court seemed to signal that these detentions—known as “Kavanaugh stops”—are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. But that decision does not prevent Congress from forbidding them by legislation.

Once again, DHS officers are following the law and the idea that DHS are simply detaining people because of how they look or speak is nonsense. The courts have consistently ruled that race and language and place of work can be "one" of the factors used to determine reasonable suspicion to detain. It cannot be the "only" factor, but it can be part of the equation. Once again, the author is suggesting that Kavanaugh is greenlighting racial profiling, when the USSC was simply following laws and legal precedents. The only true portion of this statement is that Congress might be able to forbid this ), but if they attempted to signal out one form of law enforcement in doing so, they probably run into legal issues. Such a law would likely have to apply to all federal law enforcement, not just DHS agents. Again, not sure how such a law would even be written as these are more constitutional than legal issues.

In light of the FBI stonewalling Minnesota prosecutors’ efforts to investigate the killing of Renee Nicole Good and withholding evidence from Alex Pretti’s death, Democrats are asking to codify a requirement that DHS “preserve the ability of state and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute potential crimes and use of excessive force incidents.”

So here they want coordination from the federal law enforcement with states when it is convenient for the states, while demanding that states do not have to coordinate with the federal government in terms of the laws in question. These are federal law officers who have immunity from local and state prosecution as a matter of constitutional protection under the supremacy clause. Congress does not have the authority to override what the constitution states, so writing a law here would be constitutionally dubious. Democrats want states to be able to determine for themselves when the actions of an agent is within the scope of duty or proper actions, rather than this being determined by the federal government. But again, the supremacy clause provides that authority to the federal government for the obvious reasons that states could write laws that conflict with federal laws and then try to arrest federal agents for following the conflicting federal law.

There are a few other issues brought up in the article and most are just as silly. But the bottom line is that the left has been convinced (or self convinced) that the people breaking immigration laws are the good people. People who are obstructing law enforcement are also the good people. While the federal agents actually trying to enforce the laws as they are written are the bad guys. This is why you cannot trust sanctuary cities and states to use any sort of judgement here.