701
Democratic lawmakers denied entry to Alligator Alcatraz immigration detention site
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
701 points (99.4% liked)
politics
24588 readers
2985 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are inspecting a thing in their jurisdiction.
How are they supposed to bring an armed contingent? The Constitution does not allow the legislature to control either military or law enforcement.
edit: oh, it's you. I didn't check the username before.
Well, get on with your revolution and stop being a keyboard warrior. You fake Leninist.
Oh yes wasting everybody's time by demanding to be let in to do an inspection when they know they're not going to be let in.
We've done this song and dance before. They'll go to court and they'll be let in for a token inspection.
As far as armed contingent not that the Democrats are going to do shit but private security is definitely a thing. So is armed private security.
At least I'm not spreading around dead ideas that don't work that waste people's time and and activism.
Edit: FYI depending on the frontend you use, you can add a user tag so that you can tag me as "fake Leninist" and save us both sometime
For instance I got you as "boot" probably for some defense of the United States that we argued about.
I've only read it a few times but can you show me where the US Constitution allows The Legislature to employ private security to forcefully enter a facility controlled by The Executive?
You're talking about open revolt and that makes me think you're a plant. Maybe you're just a silly commie or maybe you're actually a state actor. I'm leaning towards silly commie.
edit: well, I guess Article 1 allows Congress to create agencies and define their scope but traditionally law enforcement has been left to The Executive. So Congress would have to found, fund, and direct a separate agency from scratch. I don't think that's going to happen.
At this point the constitution is just an excuse.
Can you show me in the Constitution where that is explicitly outlawed? Because I've read the entire Constitution and it says nothing about legislation hiring private security.
I didn't say the Democrats should force their way in, I just said that they should bring armed private security and then make a scene.
I said nothing of open Revolt. You are adding implications to thing my comment.
Regardless it would be nice if the Democrats put a little more energy into things and stop with this performative bullshit like going to an ice facility they know they won't be allowed in. Is it bullshit yeah but they should probably make a bigger fuss about it at the place like when Senator Padilla got arrested. Makes better headlines.
As far as being a state actor I would be a piss poor State actor.
So, bring guns but don't use them?
Anything not in the US Constitution is not permitted. Can a Senator hire a bodyguard? Of course. Would it be illegal to order that bodyguard to attack an ICE agent? You bet.
Congress isn't supposed to police the Executive, that's the Court's job. Well... So now the Legislature has to go do "performative bullshit" to bring these things to light.
That's you, just a couple hours ago. Sure looks like you want a firefight.