Comment by nomel
3 days ago
Could you provide a reference for them not being federal law enforcement officers (specifically immigration law)? Note that you provided none, but I do find some of your text on an AI generated website.
18 is for "general federal law". Are you trying to say they're not federal law enforcement because it's specific federal law and not general? Do you have a reference that supports this?
From the Cornell link:
> Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which enforces U.S. immigration law at, within, and beyond U.S. borders;
Are you saying the immigration/deportation enforcement (enforcement) is not federal? It seems it can only be enforced at the federal level [1].
Is this semantics? They're federal agents (this isn't up for interpretation, as case law exists). They enforce federal law [1]. What am I missing? You write as if there's an accepted legal definition. Please provide the reference! Help!
I don't know if it's intentional, but your formatting makes it very unclear where law ends and opinion begins.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-laws-and-res...
Yes, immigration/deportation officers are enforcing civil violations, not criminal, meaning they don't qualify. HSI is the group that does actual criminal stuff and that qualify under statute. ICE officers aren't doing that. Also the statutes that give authority require proper training, which ICE is definitely not receiving with their cut down.
But nah, I'm not spending more time after your uncalled for 'AI website' dig. No need to be an ass or imply I'm using AI or take passive aggressive jabs. I looked but don't have that site in my history. I do have: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2024-title6/USCOD... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.8 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2024-title6/USCOD... https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero along with others.
> after your uncalled for 'AI website' dig
It wasn't a dig. I found the the verbatim text when I searched for some of your on an AI website, trying try to find a reference, since you didn't provide any. Your entire response was very confusing, being a mix of unreferenced pasted text from multiple sources, none that come to the conclusion that you made, which appears to be personal opinion, and, again, no delineation between text of law, pasted text from websites, and your opinion.
I don't see how they come to the conclusion that you do with those links, several seem to be tangential to if they are federal law enforcement. If you could quote exactly what makes you think what you do, that would be helpful, but I'm more interested in legal opinion with some level of qualification behind it, rather than personal opinion, since personal opinion is all I've been able to find.
For the basic training requirement, I guess you're referring to this [1], which is referenced from the others. Do you have a reference that they're not receiving this training? The closest I can find is this investigative journalist [2], with the conclusion seeming to be that they are, at least for the requirements of the law.
If they're not federal law enforcement, I would think finding a reference would be easy saying that they're not, but, again, I've never found one and nobody that claims they aren't has been able to provide one. Again, it is easy to find a reference that they are federal law enforcement.
> I looked but don't have that site in my history.
The one website in my last comment was a reference for immigration law requiring federal enforcement. There's no reason it would be in your history, unless you thought it was for the AI website I found the text on, which means we're at the limits of communication here.
Cheers!
[1] > https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/1/23/are-ice-agents-...