Comment by nomel

> 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-...