General Discussion

a deep blue city where the reporting org is lefter than many--riled people in many respects.

But they were faithful to the facts.

They're based in Austin, TX. And only addressed ICE-arrested/detained people in TX.

Early-ish in 2025 most of those detained had either criminal records or criminal charges filed against them. And local LE agencies reported them. TX cooperates with ICE. The reporters had no way of distinguishing between the two groups--those with convictions or just charges. But under the new law, the difference is largely effaced as far as ICE is concerned.

Later, a significant %age was still convicted/charged, but not a majority. This, too, is reasonable. The pool of those convicted and charged is finite, recidivism is a thing. Shrink the pool, shrink those 'caught.' Even as ICE said the "focus" was on those with criminal convictions or charges, which many apparently interpreted as not "focused" but "exclusively apprehending." I mean, I can focus on one thing but still have other things to deal with, so it's not a stark all/nothing binary. (Don't we break binaries?)

Now, TX has provided ICE with a large number of potential or actual deportees. As it "should", statistically speaking--it's not a small state in terms of acreage or head count. And more than its share of unauthorized immigrants settle here, so there's that.

Please, somebody, point me to the kind of ICE sweep like this, or in Chicago, or other blue states, that's occurred in TX. Threats of National Guard? Threats to withhold some federal funding because of immigrancy-related obdurance? (Which, apparently, the OED accepts but DU's spellcheck rejects. Derived from "obdurate".) I look forward to the PMs but honestly don't expect any that are on point.

This makes sense. If you have a large(ish) percentage of those who entered the US by less than legal means, as defined by current regs, there are two ways to deal with removing them (after whatever immigration law says is due process). One is (A) having local LE report them when encountered; the other is (B) "sweeps". And, you know, in the last 10 months it's not been A union B, but A or B. (Don't feel like finding/cutting/pasting the set-theoretic symbols here ... faster to give a mea culpa like this).