Reposted byTina Smith
American citizens do not need to “prove” their identity to ICE agents to avoid arrest and detention.
Unconstitutional.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes72%
No26%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 39 sponsored · 192 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byTina Smith
A U.S. citizen dragged out of his home, barely clothed, into the cold.
A 5-year-old detained on his way home from preschool.
This is the reality of what ICE is doing with their $75 billion budget. Wouldn’t this be better spent on health care?
ICE is detaining preschoolers. They’re breaking windows, stealing people out of their homes, forcing a U.S. citizen to walk in his underwear in freezing temperatures to a detention facility.
This isn’t the way it has to be if Congress actually exerts its muscle and says no to more ICE funding.
To any colleagues who don't see a problem with what ICE is doing in Minnesota: What's it going to take? When is enough, enough?
Reposted byTina Smith
“the agent took the child out of the still-running car, led him to the door and directed him to knock on the door asking to be let in in order to see if anyone else was home, essentially using a 5-year-old as bait.”
Agents later took the father and child away in a vehicle and sent them to Texas
Reposted byTina Smith
The Columbia Heights school district says ICE detained four of its students, including a 5-year-old boy, as "bait" to draw out family members.
Terrorizing our kids is not going to make our communities safer. ICE needs to end this surge in Minnesota – and I refuse to vote to send more funding to DHS and ICE when they continue to trample on the rights of Minnesotans and make our communities less safe.
ICE finally let her go after several days.We can’t let America become a country that lets agents arbitrarily take people into custody for days with no recourse, no contact with family. That’s not who we are. Those aren’t our values.
Her family came to the United States legally and has every right to be here. But because of the color of her skin, she was snatched off the street. For days, her family had no information on where she was being held and no way to reach her.
A Minnesota high school student was nabbed by ICE agents as she was trying to pick up food for her family after work. She was violently dragged from her car and lost her shoes. So, barefoot in the middle of winter, she was put into the back of an unmarked car in a small town (Willmar).
Reposted byTina Smith
This is a U.S. citizen.
No criminal record.
No search warrant.
No excuse.
Unabashed cruelty & indiscriminate violence is ICE’s point & purpose.
ICE agents are now racially profiling and harassing *off duty police officers* in Minnesota and demanding their papers.
This is another senseless tragedy. ICE has an obligation to keep detainees safe.
We need a complete and impartial investigation of what is happening in these detention centers.
Hearing reports that a man taken by ICE in Minneapolis died in federal custody.
Reposted byTina Smith
“Fourth graders spent the week building walls of snow at recess to protect their classmates from ICE” is a sentence that shouldn’t exist.
Reposted byTina Smith
Reposted byTina Smith
A federal judge has prohibited federal immigration agents in Minnesota from arresting, detaining, retaliating against or using force and chemical irritants against peaceful protesters and observers.
Well-trained law enforcement would de-escalate. Their first instinct should NOT be “shoot first and ask questions later.”
Your agents killed one of our citizens in broad daylight.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 196 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-16 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 172 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-48) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 190 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-48) |
| 2026-06-15 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-06-08 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 1318 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (52-47) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.
Page 1 / 18Next →