Q: Local police chiefs say their off duty officers are being targeted because they're a person of color and being asked to show papers. Is that a concern of the administration?

JD VANCE: It is a concern? Absolutely. The first thing we have to figure out is if it happened or not… pic.twitter.com/gEV5Zv3V9B

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 22, 2026

KaiBear said:

---

I don't believe a word of it.

Far too convenient.

---

KaiBear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

good grief man! you cannot possibly be so misguided! If we cannot arrest an illegal on the way to lunch, when the hell can we arrest him?

There's also no way to deport people that will not angert the open borders crowd. They see these illegals as neighbors who have a right to be here. They are morally opposed to ANY deportation, by ANY means. And these Democrat leaders are going to fight to the last breath to keep their apportionment base from being deported Democrats will lose approx 20 house seats if all the illegals go home.

Thank you for showing us why moderates are so damned ineffective. They will not do anything, no matter how important it might be, if some old lady complains somewhere.

---

once again , you have NO clue what you are talking about. No way to deport people with the open border crowd. Nobody I know is for illegal immigration. We are for legal immigration. Nobody believe the BS you spew about they think they are our neighbors who have a right to believe. I do not know anyone who thinks that. Immigrants are barely marginally successful. Musk, Serge Brinn, Jenson , ect. bunch of damn immigrants. this google thing really sucks, so does, EVS, ultra powered chip stacks, YouTube aint cool either.

---

You need to get out more.

Also, when people in and out of government allow and even promote massive illegal immigration, that is an indication of being "for" it.

---

So many folks choose to 'forget' the United States leads the world in legal immigration.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Over-zealous enforcement can also erode the rule of law.

---

Would you agree that the Biden policy of open boarders and catch and release helped to erode the rule of law?

---

There was no such policy. The increase and decrease in border crossings had to do with changes in the labor market, not Biden or Trump.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Take a chill pill.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Take a chill pill.

---

Well, well, well. Look who was wrong. Arrests have been made. Meaning a judge thought this had to do with the face act and you were wrong. Again.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Take a chill pill.

---

Well, well, well. Look who was wrong. Arrests have been made. Meaning a judge thought this had to do with the face act and you were wrong. Again.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

---

I've explained my position. I can condemn the behavior without joining in the mass panic.

Minnesota law is perfectly adequate to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. That's not what the FACE Act is for. Much less is it to punish protests that you dislike. It's to punish intentional interference and other misconduct as specifically defined by the statute. Not as defined by the vague sensibilities of some guy on a message board.

---

Blah blah blah.

Your last sentence shows just how two faced you are.

You can't admit that you let your TDS get a hold of you on a subject that had nothing to do with Trump and knew you were losing so you resort to personal attacks against someone who has called Trump out for lots of things on these boards. Then you give your take on it as being "right" while dismissing anyone else's view as "some guy on a message board"

Well guess what…. You are just some guy on a message board.

This was intentional interference. My view on this has nothing to do with the stance of the protesters. It has to do with them storming a church. I would be saying the same thing if it was pro ICE supporters doing it. Or if it had been a synagogue, mosque, Mormon "church", etc.

---

If I was wrong to suggest you're overreacting because of your devotion to Trump, I apologize. Maybe you're overreacting for some other reason. But Trump is certainly raising the temperature of the debate, as he always does.

---

Overreacting?? Because I think it qualifies as a violation of the face act and you don't? So because I disagree with you that is an overreaction?

---

And because I disagree with you, I'm "flat out lying to make my fellow leftists not appear as bad?"

---

When you dismiss the facts with statements like "just a guy on a message board" or bend facts to say that "no physical force" was used when the law does not say it has to be physical force and are trying to bend the law or lie about what it says to fit your side then yes you are lying. By the very definition of that word.

But leftists like to create new definitions for words or refuse to define words……like woman.

---

Take a chill pill.

---

Well, well, well. Look who was wrong. Arrests have been made. Meaning a judge thought this had to do with the face act and you were wrong. Again.

---

Good luck with that.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

Waco1947 said:

---

George Will 2018 speaking of illegals
"Fifty-eight percent of the more than 11 million down from 12.2 million in 2007 who are here illegally have been here at least 10 years; 31 percent are homeowners; 33 percent have children who, having been born here, are citizens. The nation would recoil from the police measures that would be necessary to extract these people from the communities into the fabric of which their lives are woven. They are not going home; they are home."

---

Wangchung said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

This is why not even Jr supports your posts, and he's one of the dumbest people around.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

This is why not even Jr supports your posts, and he's one of the dumbest people around.

---

Let's do coffee. I think you will like me.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I said I was concerned about the DOJ overreacting, and it looks like they're doing just that. If the charges are dropped, I'll admit I was wrong.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I said I was concerned about the DOJ overreacting, and it looks like they're doing just that. If the charges are dropped, I'll admit I was wrong.

---

Goal posts moved yet again by you.

You said this was not a federal crime. These arrests prove otherwise.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

This is why not even Jr supports your posts, and he's one of the dumbest people around.

---

Let's do coffee. I think you will like me.

---

I have a lot of friends that are politically opposite of me. We get along famously. I don't have any time for people who distort the word of god and spread blasphemy masquerading as Christianity. I don't have any time for people who excuse and protect pedophiles. I don't have time for people who lie in the face of facts. I'd grab a coffee with Sam or Porter or even Jr's dumbass just for the entertainment value. But I don't have time for coffee with someone who spreads evil.

---

Liberal white woman protests President Trump at Target by filling up her cart with $400 worth of items, but doesn’t buy anything.

These people are insufferable. pic.twitter.com/8uAFvarlHh

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) January 23, 2026

Jack Bauer said:

---

Liberal white woman protests President Trump at Target by filling up her cart with $400 worth of items, but doesn’t buy anything.

These people are insufferable. pic.twitter.com/8uAFvarlHh

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) January 23, 2026

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Apparently you are mistaken about me. Let's do coffee

---

🚨 ICE is creating a watchlist of anyone and everyone who films them, DHS sources tell me:https://t.co/wdaX24HTMZ

— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) January 23, 2026

ICE agent asked why he's taking pictures of a legal observer's car, replies: "Cuz we have a nice little database and now you're considered a domestic terrorist. So have fun with that." pic.twitter.com/IbyRqycSc2

— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) January 23, 2026

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

---

Wangchung said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

---

That moron probably shouldn't have attacked a law enforcement officer, huh?

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

---

That moron probably shouldn't have attacked a law enforcement officer, huh?

---

Where does it say that he did that?

---

Wangchung said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

---

That moron probably shouldn't have attacked a law enforcement officer, huh?

---

Where does it say that he did that?

---

In the article linked and in multiple articles that come up when searching this story.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I said I was concerned about the DOJ overreacting, and it looks like they're doing just that. If the charges are dropped, I'll admit I was wrong.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I said I was concerned about the DOJ overreacting, and it looks like they're doing just that. If the charges are dropped, I'll admit I was wrong.

---

There's Somali Sam, all right. He'll be cool with the DOJ if they don't do their job.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Pee Wee Herman defense. always laughable. Just as soon as you white folk go through 500 years of racism, slavery, segregation, and present prejudice, then I'll hear whites complain

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

An Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient says that he was tackled and arrested by ICE agents in Minneapolis and held in a cell for eight hours without being allowed to contact an attorney or his family. https://t.co/GpWSGe9Uvl pic.twitter.com/9HZ3D2NbLS

— ABC News (@ABC) January 23, 2026

---

That moron probably shouldn't have attacked a law enforcement officer, huh?

---

Where does it say that he did that?

---

In the article linked and in multiple articles that come up when searching this story.

---

"Attacked"??? That's quite a stretch.

---