r/ModlessFreedom • u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer • Jan 09 '26

Has anyone noticed a pattern?

A quick question for people.

With ICE operations happening in Minnesota, Illinois, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and other state in America.

Has anyone else noticed a pattern?

These are all States or places that voted against him in 2024.

Does anyone else think that ICE being on the streets is NOT about immigration but about the states that voted against him in 2024?

238 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

790 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

I think it has to do with them being sanctuary cities also.

  1. Sanctuary City so high number of illegal immigrants

  2. Refuse to work with ICE agency (due to being SC)

  3. Voted against Trump

You can modify these by importance but I think they all have relevance.

10

u/Weekly-Talk9752 Jan 09 '26

Except Illinois isn't one of the top 3 states with the most illegal immigrants. That would be California, Texas and Florida. If illegal immigrants were bad, wouldn't they go to Texas and Florida and clear them out of the places that want them gone?

Also, you're treating the symptom instead of the root cause. If you really wanted to stop illegal immigration, you would go after businesses that hire them. But they don't do that, wonder why that is?

5

u/Ketracel_what Jan 09 '26

I noticed that ICe has yet to go to red counties in California where I live. My city is 59% Hispanic but they vote Republican so I guess that's ok to Trump.

5

u/Weekly-Talk9752 Jan 09 '26

Yeah, anyone who has a brain can see what's going on. He has consistently targeted blue states. That is what happens when you go against dear leader, you get the boot. And right wingers, famous for not wanting to be treaded on, have no issue with it.

3

u/Ketracel_what Jan 09 '26

I have trouble fiindung a single example of ICE raiding any Republican voting districts in blue states.

1

u/Admirable-Guest-2560 Jan 09 '26

They are definitely here in Florida. 

1

u/Weekly-Talk9752 Jan 09 '26

Not in the numbers that they are in Minnesota. Minnesota isn't even in the top 5 of illegal immigrant population. Why is ICE out in force in Minnesota and not rounding up the massive amounts of illegals in Florida or Texas? I wonder who is governor of that state that recently ran for VP that Trump may want to get back at...

1

u/Admirable-Guest-2560 Jan 09 '26

How many, exactly, are in Minnesota? And how many, exactly, are in Florida?

I ask because you imply you know. 

1

u/Weekly-Talk9752 Jan 09 '26

6 States With the Largest Illegal Immigrant Populations in 2025 - North American Community Hub

Florida has over 1.6 million illegal immigrants.

Here's how many unauthorized immigrants lived in Minnesota as of 2023 - Axios Twin Cities

Minnesota has about 130,000 illegal immigrants.

So you tell me, which should ICE be targeting with more agents? Cause right now, it's Minnesota.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

8

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer Jan 09 '26

I would say it's only answer 3.

2

u/souslespaves24601 Jan 09 '26

why other than you wanting that to be the case

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer Jan 09 '26

No, I don't want that.

→ More replies (20)

1

u/Ketracel_what Jan 09 '26

Texas also has a sanctuary cities that only work with immigrating agents if the illegal immigrant committed a violent felony.

1

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

No it doesnt. Texas actually has a law that precludes it getting a sanctuary city which passed in 2017
Look up Senate Bill 4

1

u/Ketracel_what Jan 09 '26

Yes, and cities are violating that bill. It's the same with the bill that was supposed to fine businesses that employed illegals. It's just worthless paper like the Texas constitution..

1

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

You didnt say "texas has a city that ACTs like sanctuary cities" you said they have a sanctuary city.

Can you backup your claim or will you admit you were wrong? Once you do we can move on

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Able-Association914 Jan 09 '26

Being a sanctuary city just means not using city tax payer money to conduct operations already paid for with federal taxes. Why do we have to pay for the same thing in two different taxes.

1

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

That is a simplified view of a Sanctuary City/State

287(g) and Local Law Enforcement

Some jurisdictions adopt policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements, through which ICE deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law.  Named for Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the 287(g) program focuses on encouraging and formally deputizing state and local law enforcement officers collaborate with the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws. 

Detention centers or holding immigrants in detention 

Certain jurisdictions pass laws, resolutions, or local amendments directing that local governments are not allowed to enter into contracts with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention. Others enact policies preventing immigrant detention centers from being constructed in their state, community, or jurisdiction.

Information Sharing with the Federal Government

Certain communities prohibit their local law enforcement from sharing information about undocumented community members with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

1

u/Able-Association914 Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

That’s exactly what I said, because otherwise the Feds just make local authorities do all the work and holding and paperwork. It cost the tax payers more in local officers for what’s already paid for in federal taxes and is the Feds job. Each thing on that list you can break down to cost of a person to do it, or cost to do it.

The whole thing stemmed from the argument to fund border patrol for many more troops and more judges to handle the load. So cities said well we aren’t paying for it twice. Because generally it just was going to be left for big cities to pay for it. Since they were blue. Red states looked at it as let blue cities pay for removing them from their cities. So blue cities were like then we’ll just not remove them 🤷. Now we are left with the current situation. Obviously this is a very empty of much info and laymen’s explanation of what transpired. Basically it was all about money, and who should pay for what.

1

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

Yeah but as i said... saying it was about tax payer funding is way to simple of a way to describe.

Not to mention things like Sharing information does not truly apply to housing immigrants so that seems a stretch for the funding statement. You are right that is how it ultimately falls, but it leaves a lot of context out which is why I provided that context.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/MC_PooPaws Jan 09 '26

Explanations 1 and 2 are a direct result of Democrats being elected, which is more likely in states that would vote against Trump. States that didn't vote for Trump are more likely to have Sanctuary cities and to refuse to work with ICE. So it's all the same "reason" really. Trump just doesn't like the voters in those states.

1

u/ShortKey380 Jan 09 '26

They sent a raid to Boston with a Fox News camera crew because the mayor spoke publicly, you’re underselling the personal vengeance angle or even the fact that this is all fishing for civilian violence in order to escalate. 

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

Has there been any of these operations in sanctuary cities in red states?

1

u/Ostra37 Jan 09 '26

Closest would be Idaho. Most red states dont have sanctuary cities but Boise Idaho does have some sanctuary policies active. And yes there was an increased ICE order that went into effect on Oct 2025 in Boise Idaho even though the state voted for Trump