This really isn't the case, ICE have a strong majority against them. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ice-has-gone-too-far-in-immigration-crackdown I also think its pretty naive to think all the ICE stuff is solely or even mainly about illegal immigration. It's basically a gang of thugs at the disposal of Trump, hence why they have effectively made their agents above the law by protecting them even in murder. If you genuinely think its just about illegal immigration you should wonder why so much of the ICE activity is directed to Democrat-voting cities, and why so little is directed at farms. If you really wanted to pump up the numbers of illegal immigrants being deported there would be a lot more easier targets than they've gone for. I would like to think, and the data supports, that most people can at least not want illegal-immigration, and at the same time appreciate that an agency acting above the law and allowed to act with impunity is not a good thing or reasonable response to the problem they are meant to be dealing with.
That's a poll on ICE after weeks of round the clock propaganda demonizing them, not on the principle of deporting illegal immigrants. ICE activity isn't directed at Democrat-voting cities, those are just the cities where local police are told not to aid ICE, so you end up with chaos on the streets. My understanding is that they're prioritizing violent criminals first. At the rate they're going they won't deport all illegals, and will probably turn a blind eye to those in industries that have been allowed to become dependent on them. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/02/04...strative-warrants-and-american-public-support
If you look at the link I posted the majority thought ice was going too far back to June 2025. It's not a recent development though it has declined even further. Also it's bizarre to say that ice bleeding support after executing a member of the public on video, twice, then lying about it and calling them terrorists is just due to propaganda. Do you genuinely think no one could reasonably object to ice? Surely the actual propaganda here is the government very obviously lying about what happened and then repeatedly doubling down on it?
I said that there is majority support for deporting all illegals in the USA, which there is, and you responded by telling me that wasn't true because ICE's approval ratings are low, which is a different issue entirely. I would say though that the fact that you think two people were "executed" in the street by ICE demonstrates the effect of the propaganda quite succinctly. The first was a woman who was shot while driving her car at an officer, and the other seems to be a case of officers unloading on a guy after his recovered weapon accidentally discharged. In the first case the officer will likely be acquitted, if it goes to trial at all, and in the second it was a massive ******** up that will probably see officers fired or imprisoned. Both of these deaths would likely have been avoided had local police not been stopped from doing their jobs by leftist politicians. There's well over twice as much ICE activity in Texas compared to any other state but you don't see these scenes because the local leftoids have not been riled up by their politicians telling them that ICE is the gestapo, who then let them loose on ICE operations with no police safeguarding in sight. The generous explanation is that this is stupidity and ineptitude, but I think it's more likely that the carnage is precisely what Tim Walz and his ilk wanted.
This belief is detached from reality. It's a fiction, a fever dream. If this is what a significant proportion of the American public have been propagandized to believe then there's no wonder that support for ICE is falling. I'd be among the first to suggest that large chunks of the population are barely sapient and governed by their emotions, but I still struggle to believe that people don't know what criminals being arrested looks like. It's what's going on in Minnesota and how it's framing in the media that is upsetting the American public, not what's going on in Texas and elsewhere.
It's curious you are so keen to diagnose others of suffering from the effects of propaganda when you are so clearly suffering from it yourself. You yourself claim that it was a "massive ******** up" that will get the officers fired - if that's the case then why did both the Department of Homeland Security head refer to the man as a "domestic terrorist", and the Vice-President call him an "assassin who tried to murder federal agents". But no, its simply propaganda from the other side that's causing people to doubt ICE right? Not the blatant government propaganda to attempt to cover up crimes. Then for some reason despite the government defending ICE from cold blooded murder, you instead bizarrely blame.....Tim Walz? Baffling behavior. Funny how someone the people actually controlling the United States are not blamed a single time in your post for absolutely anything.
You've just spelled out how my statements are not in line with theirs, so what propaganda am I suffering from? There was no "cold blooded murder", these instances were in the heat of moment, avoidable deaths in the one place that has a governor whipping his public up into a frenzy and then denying them adequate policing.
The assertion that the Renee Good was in anyway a justified shooting - Obviously victim propaganda Blaming....Tim Walz - for people being murdered - while simultaneously not a single word of blame for the government who reflexively defend any and all crimes from officers - Obviously victim of propaganda Claiming that the only reason a substantial majority think ICE has gone too far is due to left-wing propaganda and apparently has nothing to do with the above - Obviously a victim of propaganda Are you really in so deep you don't understand there is perhaps some kind of overlap where people broadly support the idea of deportation of illegal immigrants but simultaneously not support how ICE has been utilised?
There's loads of legal precedent in the US for that kind of killing being justified. Whether a jury will find that way nobody knows, but don't be surprised if he's not convicted, assuming there is a criminal trial at all. In fact armed police in the US (and even the UK) are trained to shoot drivers they believe are a threat to life. What propaganda? What did I say that's not true? How can I blame deaths on something that happened after the deaths? I don't think the public blames ICE for the things Trump says. I said that what people are upset about is what they're seeing coming out of Minesota. Propagandizing plays a big role in that, but the incidents give that ammunition. That's why I'm blaming Tim Walz so much. What we saw there is not a consequence of normal ICE operations in conjunction with normal local law enforcement, because if it were then we'd be seeing about 30x more of it in Texas. I think if things in Minesota had gone as they have in most other states then the backlash would be a fraction of what it actually has been.
Just on your first point, armed police in the US are absolutely not trained to shoot drivers, unless the threat to life is from another source, i.e. a gun, or they have no means of evading the vehicle. The DoJ says this... "Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle." Renee Good was not driving at the officer, she was steering hard right to go past him, but even if she was he successfully evaded the vehicle and so clause 2 is not in effect. The reason you don't shoot the driver is obvious. You end up with an out of control vehicle likely to be of even more danger to those in the area.
Yep, seen the footage on many occasions with the Renee Good incident and she wasn’t driving straight at the ICE agent, driving past him, hard right and he even shoots her from the side so not sure how that was deemed a worthwhile defence. Especially made even worse by Trump lying in broad daylight that the officer was badly injured after being run over which unless you have Stevie Wonder eyes, you clearly see wasn’t the case. I’m pretty sure the second killing was also debunked that they had removed the gun prior to the shooting, so that doesn’t sound justified.
Fair enough. My fault for trusting AI. I don't believe her intent was to run him over but I think she showed complete disregard for his safety while trying to flee, and in the moment he acted the car was driving into him. It's easy to say in hindsight that he was in no danger because he managed to get out of the way in time, but if he hadn't and she'd crushed his skull like a grapefruit with her two-tonne vehicle, then what? Even if DOJ policy were law, "objectively reasonable" is (ironically) quite ambiguous. At least one of the bullet holes is in the windscreen and she objectively strikes him with the car.
She, at worst, grazes him with the car as he evades the vehicle. It's possible to shoot through the windscreen from a position outside of the left headlight. None of that excuses the shots fired through the open passenger window as she passes him when he is in absolutely no danger at all. You say that you haven't fallen for any propaganda and yet you appear to have bought the government line on this completely. The government isn't remotely an objective commentator in this instance. You can respond that people who believe the shooting wasn't justified are buying the line of the other side but accept that you aren't taking some middle line. I'll leave it there as I don't think we're going to agree on this.
The idea that ICE are only, or predominantly, targeting serious criminals is also well wide of the mark. People without a criminal record make up the largest cohort of detainees.
The In game adverts at the Six Nations made the News. What’s the reaction going to be when ITV use them during the World Cup in front of 20+ million viewers.
Guys, the national government of this country—one I once worked for as a civil servant—is morally bankrupt. Full stop. I’m not demanding 100% moral purity, but this alone is enough to disqualify us from staging the top international sporting event.
I think if it’s a trade off that means it stays on terrestrial TV then most if not all will take it, other than those who can afford all the other TV packages that is. It’s the only way channels like ITV can keep them otherwise non will be free to air.
I don’t speak for Russia or Qatar or any sovereign nation, but we are on that level of all-time low to justify it.
I'd say you (and we) were far lower when we were invading Iraq and Afghanistan and killing a million brown people for oligarchs and Israel.
World Cup group games for England and Scotland are under threat - because the stadium has yet to be granted a licence - The Sun