There is a real possibility that these agents will continue detainment of people, even if they are US citizens, as they are trying to vote. Perhaps they will use their facial recognition app, Mobile Fortify (built by NEC), to identify people and decide if they’re a likely GOP voter or not. Who knows. Whatever they do, this feels like a serious threat to American democracy.
The process is so blunt, so blatant, it's surprising that it works. I'm guessing it's the result of years and years of lessening the american people so that they can roll over in the most undignified way.
However, using the goon squad to illegally intimidate and disenfranchise voters is a problem large enough that calling it a would-be distraction from the Epstein files is doing everyone a disservice.
We have to pay attention to more than one thing. Saying <blank> is just a distraction from <blank-2>, means that you're too distracted by <blank-2> and need to step back and look around at all the other horrors.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I'm honestly disappointed to see this flagged. What's the saying, "Even an SEO farm is right twice a day"?
Under the previous American regime 8 to 22 million illegal immigrants were let into their country. This was managed by cartels acting as travel agencies, so why is it controversial to remove the criminals from this cohort? Why is it controversial for the American's to want to protect their political system from outside influence?
The idea that black Americans have no ID is ridiculous. Asking for ID to vote is something any sane democratic system requires. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people making less money in their economy, not to have the rug pulled from them, by introducing millions of desperate-competitors who work for cash and haven't paid taxes into their existing system. Massive illegal immigration does not help the American poor---who are trying to climb that ladder they call "The American dream". (supply and demand)
But, I can see why people would want ICE to receive more training, an untrained police force is dangerous. I could see why they would want them bound by law, this is obvious.
Bannon is a controversial figure, but defending the system of democracy shouldn't be controversial.
The constitution protects rights of citizens to vote.
It does seem bizarre you need an ID to show you are a 'person' to exercise the right of people, but not an ID to show you are a citizen to exercise the right of citizens.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's blindingly inconsistent across rights. Surely it is at least as easy to show you are a person without ID, as it is to show you are a citizen without ID...
I also expect:
1) Lawsuits, subpoenas, and indictments against and of elections offices and key officials in Democratic areas of vulnerable Republican districts, timed to mess with their ability to even function. If it suppresses the vote that's a "nice to have" but mostly this is to sow uncertainty about the elections both by generating ginned-up headlines (it doesn't matter if the investigations actually find anything or go anywhere) and by delaying vote counting and causing chaos (e.g. very long lines) on Election Day, which opens up greater space for the GOP to act after the elections.
2) Challenges of the outcomes by the administration and their proxies, and outright calls for Republicans to pull certification tricks akin to the fake-elector crime they attempted in '20. This would be supported by #1, and by ICE-created chaos and vote suppression.
Incidentally, the ICE intervention can take many forms, the most extreme of which (and most effective to the admin) is triggering violence (a lot of people are going to react poorly to being asked "papers, please" by a small squad of armed & armored federal thugs on the way to vote) that actually shuts down polling places in key locations. This both heavily suppresses the vote in areas they've targeted, and serves their "chaos! Democrats are trying to cheat by letting illegals vote! See how much they freak out when we don't let them?" narrative. The lighter version is some cautious shows-of-force and unrealized threats ahead of time, aimed at gentler levels of vote suppression (if you're a citizen but have an accent and aren't white, you might think twice about your odds of getting to the polls without getting locked up for a day or two and losing perhaps five figures you may not have attaining your release, and just stay home, even if ICE ends up not showing or just doing some show-of-force drive-bys that end up all over social media)
I'd love to know what, if anything, state governments are planning to prevent any of this. I've personally not been able to think of a single effective thing they can do about it as far as actually keeping it from happening or recovering quickly from the material harm it does (winning much later in the court of public opinion, for whatever that's worth, is another matter, as is eventually winning in court) but maybe there's something.
(I rate all the above fairly likely, in some form; my outside-but-not-impossible-odds guess is they'll seize some ballot drop boxes or enroute mail-in ballots with nebulous claims of wrongdoing that don't go anywhere but do fuck up specific districts' voting processes, with, as usual, no relief from the courts because by the time anything can be done about it it's a fait accompli and nobody's gonna trust those ballots after the feds have had them, anyway)
A seat that is likely to flip is probably going to be a relatively close race.
There are a bunch of public and private sources you can use, and databases both parties have already compiled, to find out which polling places are likely to be overwhelmingly visited by one party's voters over the other.
A majority of one in the House, and a tie in the Senate, is all the White House needs to mostly prevent Congress from messing with them much (though larger margins are better).
Combine all these facts and they have more than enough ICE agents to have a huge effect on the outcomes. They only need to show up in a handful of specific places to completely change the course of the next couple years.
cf100clunk•1h ago
dyauspitr•1h ago
an0malous•1h ago
ksherlock•1h ago
-- Richard Nixon, 1973; US Supreme Court, 2024
Analemma_•1h ago
an0malous•1h ago
watwut•1h ago
mothballed•1h ago
It's a road map to where we end up with a similar document but a different culture.
eftychis•1h ago
secretballot•1h ago
This isn't a crazy or impossible proposition, it can be done with just a law. We already form some courts in a similar way, so it's also not unprecedented. It even avoids the naked partisanship of a simple court-packing.
As far as I can tell, nobody who matters is talking about it yet. So. Hope is... remote.
toomuchtodo•1h ago
(As of early 2026, 29 states allow permitless (constitutional) concealed carry of firearms in most public spaces, while 21 states still generally require a permit. Major permitless carry states include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona. While 47 states allow some form of open carry, California, Illinois, and New York prohibit it)
mothballed•1h ago
toomuchtodo•1h ago
You are responsible for protecting you, no one else is or will. Know the law, operate within it to the best of your ability and from a position of good faith. Failing all of that, a jury will work it out.
https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-plac...
Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022
jeffbee•45m ago
And, to be perfectly clear, it is reasonable to shoot that person on sight. But so far only Texas has codified it.
toomuchtodo•31m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_S... (status by US state)