Exclusive: ICE Glasses Homeland Security is making “smart glasses” to collect intelligence inside the U.S.

🚨 ICE Glasses are coming - specialized smart glasses designed by and for the Department of Homeland Security, documents reveal:
www.kenklippenstein.com/p/exclusive-...

it’s a great day for transphobes to eat shit

Oh, this had to have contributed!

I remember Shamoo being big when I was in elementary school. Also, Lisa Frank?

Was just in a work meeting of 4 women, and the icebreaker question was “What did you want to be when you grows up while you were in elementary school,” and 3 of the 4 people all said dolphin trainer. Somebody, explain the zeitgeist moment of dolphin training for itty bitty Millennials and Gen Z.

men can’t understand what it’s like for women to see story after story after story of women being victims of sexual violence in a culture where it’s routine; what it’s like to live in a world that is fundamentally hostile to our existence. it’s a wonder we leave the fucking house, let alone thrive.

DHS did the same earlier today. It was for exactly as vile and racist a reason as you can imagine; Breitbart’s “black crime” vertical as official government policy. They are terrible, terrible people. And they’re in control.

This administration is the most openly racist administration since Wilson invited the KKK to the White House.

Cover of Anna Law's Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship with a US flag and a man behind the flag as if the stripes are bars

📣 📣You can read the first chapter of my book for FREE until May 10 here: academic.oup.com/book/62224/c...

Any number of Americans are willing to make clumsy bad-faith arguments in an effort to unperson and unstate millions of human beings. Some of those Americans are throne-sniffing prominence-chasing law professors. Decent people should treat them with contempt. That’s MY free speech culture.

DHS Launches Massive “Less Lethal” Chemical Weapons Buying Spree Federal agents’ indiscriminate use of tear gases and “less-lethal” projectiles has become a mainstay of protest crackdowns.

People who are victims of scattershot projectiles are often granted asylum by US immigration and justice agencies. What does it say that our immigration agencies are buying them for domestic use?:

theintercept.com/2026/04/03/l...

DHS Launches Massive “Less Lethal” Chemical Weapons Buying Spree Federal agents’ indiscriminate use of tear gases and “less-lethal” projectiles has become a mainstay of protest crackdowns.

People who are victims of scattershot projectiles are often granted asylum by US immigration and justice agencies. What does it say that our immigration agencies are buying them for domestic use?:

theintercept.com/2026/04/03/l...

The School of Sociology Spring Colloquium Series Friday, April 3rd, SS 415 12:00-1:15pm AZT Dr. Emily Ryo, Professor, Duke University Speaking on: Weaponizing Immigration Detention

Weaponizing Immigration Detention Immigrants, like all individuals, exist within networks of social relationships that shape their identities, inform their decision-making, and guide their behavior. Certain areas of substantive U.S. immigration law—the body of law governing who may enter or remain in the United States—explicitly acknowledge this social embeddedness by protecting or privileging valued social relationships. In contrast, procedural immigration law—the set of rules governing how substantive immigration law is implemented and enforced—undermines or destroys those very relationships. The U.S. government’s practice of transferring immigrant detainees across multiple detention facilities and confining them in remote locations is a paradigmatic example of such destructive procedural immigration law in action. This Article presents the first systematic empirical analysis of interfacility transfers and remote detention in the U.S. immigration detention system. Our empirical findings show that in the past fifteen years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has routinely relied on long‑distance transfers that cross state lines and federal judicial circuits, as well as confinement of individuals in remote locations. Our analysis, however, also reveals that certain practices, such as transferring individuals multiple times throughout their detention, have sharply accelerated during the second Trump administration. We argue that procedural immigration law should recognize the social embeddedness of immigrants, and that doing so with respect to immigrant detainees requires strictly limiting and regulating the use of interfacility transfers and remote detention.

Bio: Emily Ryo is the Charles L. B. Lowndes Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology at Duke Law School. She was previously a professor of law and sociology at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and prior to that, a research fellow at Stanford Law School. She received a JD from Harvard Law School and a PhD in Sociology from Stanford University. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced law at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, and Hamilton. Professor Ryo’s current research focuses on immigration, criminal justice, legal attitudes and legal noncompliance, and access to justice. She approaches these issues through innovative interdisciplinary lenses, using diverse quantitative and qualitative methods. As an empirical legal scholar, she has published widely in both leading sociology and law journals. Her article with Ian Peacock, “A Study of Pandemic and Stigma Effects in Removal Proceedings,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 19(3): 560-593, received the 2023 Article Prize from the Law and Society Association.

Emily Ryo, on of the foremost scholars on immigrant detention in the US, is speaking at the University of Arizona this Friday. She’ll be discussing research on transfers between ICE facilities. There is a Zoom conferencing option. If interested in attending via Zoom, send me a DM.

The School of Sociology Spring Colloquium Series Friday, April 3rd, SS 415 12:00-1:15pm AZT Dr. Emily Ryo, Professor, Duke University Speaking on: Weaponizing Immigration Detention

Weaponizing Immigration Detention Immigrants, like all individuals, exist within networks of social relationships that shape their identities, inform their decision-making, and guide their behavior. Certain areas of substantive U.S. immigration law—the body of law governing who may enter or remain in the United States—explicitly acknowledge this social embeddedness by protecting or privileging valued social relationships. In contrast, procedural immigration law—the set of rules governing how substantive immigration law is implemented and enforced—undermines or destroys those very relationships. The U.S. government’s practice of transferring immigrant detainees across multiple detention facilities and confining them in remote locations is a paradigmatic example of such destructive procedural immigration law in action. This Article presents the first systematic empirical analysis of interfacility transfers and remote detention in the U.S. immigration detention system. Our empirical findings show that in the past fifteen years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has routinely relied on long‑distance transfers that cross state lines and federal judicial circuits, as well as confinement of individuals in remote locations. Our analysis, however, also reveals that certain practices, such as transferring individuals multiple times throughout their detention, have sharply accelerated during the second Trump administration. We argue that procedural immigration law should recognize the social embeddedness of immigrants, and that doing so with respect to immigrant detainees requires strictly limiting and regulating the use of interfacility transfers and remote detention.

Bio: Emily Ryo is the Charles L. B. Lowndes Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology at Duke Law School. She was previously a professor of law and sociology at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and prior to that, a research fellow at Stanford Law School. She received a JD from Harvard Law School and a PhD in Sociology from Stanford University. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced law at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, and Hamilton. Professor Ryo’s current research focuses on immigration, criminal justice, legal attitudes and legal noncompliance, and access to justice. She approaches these issues through innovative interdisciplinary lenses, using diverse quantitative and qualitative methods. As an empirical legal scholar, she has published widely in both leading sociology and law journals. Her article with Ian Peacock, “A Study of Pandemic and Stigma Effects in Removal Proceedings,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 19(3): 560-593, received the 2023 Article Prize from the Law and Society Association.

Emily Ryo, on of the foremost scholars on immigrant detention in the US, is speaking at the University of Arizona this Friday. She’ll be discussing research on transfers between ICE facilities. There is a Zoom conferencing option. If interested in attending via Zoom, send me a DM.

13 mexicanos han muerto en operaciones de ICE y hay más de 13 mil detenidos: SRE La Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) informó que 13 mexicanos han muerto en operativos migratorios o bajo custodia del Servicio de Inmigración y Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE) desde 2025. Rob

Roberto Velasco, subsecretario para América del Norte de la SRE, informó que 13 mexicanos han muerto durante operativos migratorios o bajo la custodia de ICE en EU.

Las defunciones han ocurrido en estados como Texas, California, Arizona y Georgia.

TLDR: the government being asked to do their job as the law requires is not the same as someone breaking into my house.

The first is literally permitted by statute and international human rights rights and refugee law. The latter could be a civil or criminal violation against me as a private individual.

So, yeah, someone going to a port of entry asking a government official for protection in accordance with law or who is detained and asking for protection in accordance with law is a completely different thing as compared to someone coming into my house without my permission.

A house is a private space, where private things happen. At ports of entry, government processing facilities, or when a person is detained by state agents, we are talking about people operating not in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, where the administration of government occurs.

Sam Alito and other anti-immigrant talking heads love to compare the concept of the nation state to a house. But a child can explain to you how “house” doesn’t mean “country.” These are fundamentally different things.

The first is literally permitted by statute and international human rights rights and refugee law. The latter could be a civil or criminal violation against me as a private individual.

So, yeah, someone going to a port of entry asking a government official for protection in accordance with law or who is detained and asking for protection in accordance with law is a completely different thing as compared to someone coming into my house without my permission.

A house is a private space, where private things happen. At ports of entry, government processing facilities, or when a person is detained by state agents, we are talking about people operating not in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, where the administration of government occurs.

Forgive the typos

There are plenty of other reasons why the idea of detaining arriving asylum seekers is problematic that I didn’t get to, including the poster’s point about detention in Europe not being good either, but rage-typing on my phone is limiting.

no* right to judicial review

Until the US stops forcibly disappearing people seeking protection and putting the burden on migrants to justify their freedom, Gov officials have no business comparing themselves to “peer nations.”

Forcibly disappearing someone while the same gov agents trying to deport you weigh whether you’ll actually be killed if they execute your deportation is not the behavior of a civilized government. It is violent. These disappearances have long been a routine tactic to manage the border.

So, no. I reject the idea that the US is a peer to many European nations on the point of initial detention for several weeks, days, or months while their asylum claims are pending.

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

This often occurs while people are in CBP custody which, as I have written about with my co-author, usually constitutes a period of enforced disappearance during which nobody knows where you are and you usually can’t call anyone to ask for help: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...