Also couldn't these Dems just abstained? Did they have to vote "yes" even if they were in formerly red districts like Gluesnkamp? I mean even in her district which she flipped there had to be animosity towards ICE because of the cherry pickers who were being disappeared. The praise for law enforcement was a poison pill added, they could have fought harder to leave it out.
Is this a specific bill you're talking about? I see my rep on your list, but I can't tell from any news sources where he's voted to support ICE activities. I want to hold hime accountable. He's running in a district where voting is very close... so I imagine he thinks he has be centrist on everything, sadly.
My DINO representative, MG Perez, is on that list. While she may have been a better choice than the white supremacist GOP candidate, many Democrats here in WA-14 deeply unhappy with her, and are supporting a primary challenge this year by Brent Hennrich. Wish us luck!
I’m grateful this was written, even though I wish it hadn’t needed to be.
There’s a particular weight that comes with lists like this. Names. Dates. Causes of death reduced to a line or two. Not because the writing is cold, but because reality already is. Each entry is a person whose last interaction with the state ended in neglect, force, or indifference. When you put them together like this, the scale stops being abstract. You can’t wave it away as a bad incident or a few mistakes. It becomes something we’re choosing to live alongside.
What strikes me most isn’t only the brutality. It’s the normalization. The way death in custody becomes a data point instead of a rupture. The way explanations arrive faster than accountability. The way both parties learn to speak about “concerns” while continuing to fund, praise, or quietly tolerate the machinery that keeps producing the same outcomes.
That’s the part that won’t let me go.
We tell ourselves that institutions drift, that harm accumulates unintentionally, that reform is always just one election away. But at some point repetition becomes intention. At some point, continuing to authorize an agency while knowing what it does is no longer negligence. It’s consent.
I also can’t shake the way this list refuses the comfort of distance. These aren’t nameless others. U.S. citizens are here. Indigenous people are here. People picked up, detained, ignored, or shot in places that look like anywhere else in America. This isn’t a border story anymore, if it ever was. It’s a due process story. It’s a dignity story. It’s a story about what protections still mean when enforcement decides who deserves them.
The hardest truth in this piece is the bipartisan one. It’s easier to believe cruelty belongs to one faction. It’s harder to sit with the fact that power, once built, rarely wants to dismantle itself, even when it knows better. Silence, praise, and procedural support all land the same way to the person on the receiving end.
I don’t read this as a call for outrage alone. I read it as a demand that we stop pretending ignorance is available to us. The record exists. The names exist. The outcomes are documented. What remains is a choice about whether we keep outsourcing our conscience to party loyalty or rhetoric about order.
A democracy doesn’t fail only when laws are broken. It fails when suffering becomes routine enough that it no longer interrupts us.
This list interrupts. It’s meant to.
The question it leaves me with isn’t only what should be done, but whether we’re willing to admit what we’re already allowing. Because nothing on this page is hidden. It’s funded. It’s authorized. And it continues because too many people have decided it’s tolerable as long as it happens to someone else.
"I don't read this as a call for outrage alone. I read it as a demand that we stop pretending ignorance is available to us." That's the essence here. Thank you for expressing it.
Thank you for letting us know which dems voted to support ice. I noted the CA dems who did so and plan to call their offices to tell them to stop doing so. I left this message with Panetta’s office last week. Keep up the good work.
Also couldn't these Dems just abstained? Did they have to vote "yes" even if they were in formerly red districts like Gluesnkamp? I mean even in her district which she flipped there had to be animosity towards ICE because of the cherry pickers who were being disappeared. The praise for law enforcement was a poison pill added, they could have fought harder to leave it out.
The money I was sending MeidasTouch will now go to you - don’t trust them anymore
Thank you Qasim for your commitment and for never having a paywall
Very disappointed to see Eugene Vindman's name on that list. He doesn't represent me, but I have followe d his career.
Thank you again for another informative article to be saved.
Great article.
Correction: WA Rep Kim Schrier is district 8.
Confess I was a little surprised at some of those damn names. I will vote against any sellout.
Is this a specific bill you're talking about? I see my rep on your list, but I can't tell from any news sources where he's voted to support ICE activities. I want to hold hime accountable. He's running in a district where voting is very close... so I imagine he thinks he has be centrist on everything, sadly.
thank you for this list, this is outright murder, they must be held accountable
My DINO representative, MG Perez, is on that list. While she may have been a better choice than the white supremacist GOP candidate, many Democrats here in WA-14 deeply unhappy with her, and are supporting a primary challenge this year by Brent Hennrich. Wish us luck!
I’m grateful this was written, even though I wish it hadn’t needed to be.
There’s a particular weight that comes with lists like this. Names. Dates. Causes of death reduced to a line or two. Not because the writing is cold, but because reality already is. Each entry is a person whose last interaction with the state ended in neglect, force, or indifference. When you put them together like this, the scale stops being abstract. You can’t wave it away as a bad incident or a few mistakes. It becomes something we’re choosing to live alongside.
What strikes me most isn’t only the brutality. It’s the normalization. The way death in custody becomes a data point instead of a rupture. The way explanations arrive faster than accountability. The way both parties learn to speak about “concerns” while continuing to fund, praise, or quietly tolerate the machinery that keeps producing the same outcomes.
That’s the part that won’t let me go.
We tell ourselves that institutions drift, that harm accumulates unintentionally, that reform is always just one election away. But at some point repetition becomes intention. At some point, continuing to authorize an agency while knowing what it does is no longer negligence. It’s consent.
I also can’t shake the way this list refuses the comfort of distance. These aren’t nameless others. U.S. citizens are here. Indigenous people are here. People picked up, detained, ignored, or shot in places that look like anywhere else in America. This isn’t a border story anymore, if it ever was. It’s a due process story. It’s a dignity story. It’s a story about what protections still mean when enforcement decides who deserves them.
The hardest truth in this piece is the bipartisan one. It’s easier to believe cruelty belongs to one faction. It’s harder to sit with the fact that power, once built, rarely wants to dismantle itself, even when it knows better. Silence, praise, and procedural support all land the same way to the person on the receiving end.
I don’t read this as a call for outrage alone. I read it as a demand that we stop pretending ignorance is available to us. The record exists. The names exist. The outcomes are documented. What remains is a choice about whether we keep outsourcing our conscience to party loyalty or rhetoric about order.
A democracy doesn’t fail only when laws are broken. It fails when suffering becomes routine enough that it no longer interrupts us.
This list interrupts. It’s meant to.
The question it leaves me with isn’t only what should be done, but whether we’re willing to admit what we’re already allowing. Because nothing on this page is hidden. It’s funded. It’s authorized. And it continues because too many people have decided it’s tolerable as long as it happens to someone else.
That’s not a radical claim. It’s a moral one.
"I don't read this as a call for outrage alone. I read it as a demand that we stop pretending ignorance is available to us." That's the essence here. Thank you for expressing it.
Thanks for the list and the information. I will be making a call.
I wish I could upgrade to paid, I can't. I am sorry.
Right, like they're going to listen. Forgive my skepticism.
It's not the point. They need to know that WE notice.
Thank you for letting us know which dems voted to support ice. I noted the CA dems who did so and plan to call their offices to tell them to stop doing so. I left this message with Panetta’s office last week. Keep up the good work.