Brad Lander detained by masked federal agents inside immigration court
(thecity.nyc)326 points by sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago
326 points by sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago
We eventually changed it. Submitted title was "ICE arrests NYC Comptroller because he asked to see a warrant".
Submitters: please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This.. What is been happening lately is absolutely batshit crazy. Now anyone could mask up and arrest some key witness right from the courthouse posing as ICE agents, regardless of their status and nobody could bat an eye because ICE seem to have some kind of supreme auhority and no law applies to them, they don't need to identify themselves, even show their faces.
He was, in fact, arrested for asking to see a warrant, that is clearly documented.
The claims of assault that DHS fabricated and published on social media and via other channels after the fact to justify it, of which there is no evidence, before Lander was released without any charges are interesting in terms of understanding the current regime's propaganda propensity, but have nothing to do with explaining the events clearly captured on video.
It serves the narrative, which is more important than facts. That's why people often say we are living in a "post-truth society."
The other commenter mentioned "narrative", which is very relevant, because that is an important part of simulation (and your username)
Baudrilliard was careful to point out that simulation isn't a matter of fabrication; to simulate is to obscure the absence of facts, not to create false facts. A simulacrum is a symbol that obscures the fact that it refers to nothing; whereas a symbol, in centuries past, invariably referred to something, real or imagined. The resulting reality (or maybe "mindspace"?) is a construct on top of the real world -- a hyper-reality -- in which every symbol is a simulacrum; the only thing real in hyper-reality is that the symbols hide the absence of facts. This is why, again as the other commenter mentions, we appear to live in a post-truth society; we are fully living in hyper-reality.
>Bad Journalism
The guy who created the Pullitzer prize also co-invented Yellow Journalism.[0][1] There is neither good journalism or bad journalism; it's all simulation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer#Pulitzer_Prize
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Origins:_Pul...
> the only thing real in hyper-reality is that the symbols hide the absence of facts
What's a fact? Concepts like justice and fairness are fundamentally cultural constructs, and yet they've always been a core concern of human society. Setting up "facts" in opposition to "simulation" is no less a rhetorical narrative than what the article is pushing.
My takeaway from post-structuralism generally isn't that we live in a "fake" reality, but that the human experience--individually, collectively--is deeply complicated.
The whole story of telling ICE agents to just go out and find people on their own seems like a setup to empower the executive branch to have their own group of thugs. Without guidance they do what want outside the judicial system and sensible oversight / rules.
This seems to be a pattern in most non democratic countries...
Another thing that is troubling is that immigration law is sort of a parallel system to normal criminal law. The rights for the accused are lesser and obligations for officers are more lax. The burden of proof is lower. It's easier to get warrants and the rules of evidence are more relaxed.
There is a parallel authoritarian system being built up, starting with the creation of DHS in 2001 and ending god knows where. The massive expansion of ICE should ring alarm bells for everyone. This power grab does not end. It will expand and continue.
Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
> Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now
It has been entertaining listening to the people at Reason Magazine lately. They have convinced themselves thoroughly that they're not actually racist authoritarians, so now that they're getting what they really want, but it's so diametrically opposed to what they say they believe, they have to contort themselves endlessly.
Do not expect any kind of help from those kinds of people. Their anti-authoritarianism is largely performative or reserved to their in-group. When it's not performative, it's just rich kids complaining they're not allowed do to whatever they want.
I’ve checked in on Reason from time to time and it’s scary. They’ll have an article accurately recognizing the threat and incompatibility with even remotely libertarian principles, and the comments are like “this boot tastes great!” or “not a problem as long as it happens to brown people”.
Their top immigration story right now is a great example: https://reason.com/2025/06/12/california-immigration-raids-a...
"I don't want to pay taxes or have firearms laws but I want to appear ideologically consistent."
>Another thing that is troubling is that immigration law is sort of a parallel system to normal criminal law. The rights for the accused are lesser and obligations for officers are more lax. The burden of proof is lower. It's easier to get warrants and the rules of evidence are more relaxed.
I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
>Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
Right now you're making the same complaints about immigration process that hardcore libertarians made decades ago about traffic court and code enforcement and were brushed off for various reasons. They're keeping their mouths shut so as to not interfere with the learning process.
It's fantastic that right libertarians have the opportunity to own me, a lib. The silver lining to all of this is all of the epic lib-owning that can be done as a result of the destruction of the rule of law. But, by my reading, traffic court and HOA fees were not cause of all of this. Right libertarians rightfully complained in 2001 when the DHS was formed; they again rightfully complained in the 2010's when Snowden blew the lid open on global surveillance. I would like to see them resist in a meaningful way here and now. Unfortunately it seems they are busy going to cryptocurrency conferences at Mar-a-Lago.
> I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
I think we saw what giving power to the "right guy" in the executive branch lead us. The thing that will stop us going down this road is, at this point, active resistance from local and state governments, private businesses and government contractors, and large multi-national corporations.
You need a lot of ICE, an absolutely staggering number of cops and jails, to deport twenty million people. It should be crystal clear by now that they will attempt to follow through with this promise, by whatever means necessary.
I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
The mechanism that is not working right now is not the presidency - it's congress. You could have Trump still in charge, but if congress were opposed to his actions - even to the extent of just repulsing his usurpation of powers he's not supposed to have - he would be a lame duck. And in fact a president on their own can't revert all this, they need congress to pass laws.
What this means is that it could end as soon as 2026. But this possibility will not last forever; if Trump succeeds in putting in place commanders in the army and police who are personally loyal to him in spite of the laws, then restoring the Republic will take many years.
> Right now you're making the same complaints about immigration process that hardcore libertarians made decades ago about traffic court and code enforcement and were brushed off for various reasons. They're keeping their mouths shut so as to not interfere with the learning process.
Can you point me to some examples of people a decade ago running afoul of traffic or code enforcement, and being sent to an extrajudicial concentration camp for it?
But seriously, stop trying to be edgy with needlessly contrarian points. Stop gloating because us libertarians were talking about the trend of unaccountable government processes before it was popular. The dam breaking is not something to be celebrated, you're just adding fuel to the fire.
It's time to circle the wagons and defend our country together. True libertarians are not "keeping our mouths shut", but rather speaking out against the rapidly increasing government power. One cause, which we have to be mature and acknowledge, is the destruction of bureaucracy (which we've always disliked, but at least it moderated) in favor of unrestrained autocracy.
> Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now?
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
I mean all ICE would really have to do is get people to agree to a TOS and in the USA that's good enough for you to now be forced into a parallel (quasi)legal system. The government already has this TOS in the form of plea deals which include giving up your constitutional rights.
Trump wants to declare martial law, he is trying to incite a reasonable enough response, the courts won't challenge him, he wants riots to be bad enough that upon his issuing the Exec Order, everyone just accepts/abides by his new king powers and obeys him like one.
Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.
You are only fine if everyone is fine.
If it can happen to a brown person, it can happen to you - maybe have a little self interest, or perhaps consider how boring America would be without immigrants and black people - that's kinda where all our culture comes from, in our melting pot everything blends together.
You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. It’s exactly hard to find examples of cops who investigated real crimes and pulled ICE in when they realized the perp wasn’t here legally.
> You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad.
Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
> refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law
the main reason why immigration law has not been enforced is because a large number of US businesses (farms, factories, etc.) depend on those illegal immigrants as their workforce
if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals -- which would also stem the tide of people coming into the US -- but that hasn't been done because immigrants -- regardless of their official status -- are a net positive for the US economy
> if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals
I'm all for that (although California seemingly isn't, given that they make it illegal for those businesses to use e-Verify in most cases). I don't see any contradiction between doing that and continuing regular immigration enforcement. I certainly don't see how you can argue that we should stop regular immigration enforcement until we've done this new thing.
> made this defensible
That's like saying vigilantism is defensible.
I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
> That's like saying vigilantism is defensible.
When traditional law enforcement fails to the point that the rule of law completely breaks down, vigilantism becomes defensible.
> I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases. I don't like it, but this is the flipsides of decades of insisting that illegal immigration isn't a crime and illegal immigrants aren't criminals.
> the rule of law completely breaks down
pretty hard to argue that the rule of law as completely broken down in the US
> ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases
yeah, you're probably right about that though I think it's more "some" cases than "many" (they can't enter your house to search for someone without a warrant); due process still holds though
Link in case it's removed: https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/06/17/brad-lander-arrest-ice-im...
Because it's HN not /r/politics
A lot of us doesn't come here to read about US internal politics
>Because it's HN not /r/politics
Poltical stories that show "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" are not against the guidelines. A few years back someone said nearly half the YC batch was non-US. I think stories about city comptrollers and mayoral candidates getting arrested at immigration court would have some bearing on whether someone would want to base a company in the US.
A user who has enough karma to flag stories has flagged it for whatever reason, maybe they think the story is flamebait or without merit, who knows. It is not possible for a user with equal or higher karma to unflag it I believe. Only a moderator can unflag it, and if you want them to do that you have to email them (address in guidelines, no guarentee of success).
> Poltical stories that show "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" are not against the guidelines.
Call me evil and obtuse, but this is neither interesting, nor new. The only thing new here is that (it seems) a huge swath of people are learning how the law works for the first time.
Brad Lander had nothing to do with the situation. He's a politician, and he was there "observing". It's the equivalent if I walked down to the Manhattan courthouse, ran up to the first defendant in shackles I saw in the hallway, and started interfering with their movement. I'd be arrested.
The fact that you, as a random bystander, aren't shown ID and briefed on the situation isn't relevant. If you aren't involved, you aren't involved.
> A lot of us doesn't come here to read about US internal politics
I see this a lot, and I think, "then why are you posting comments in a thread for a article discussing US internal politics?"
Because they have an opinion on it, but want to appear even-handed.
US internal politics are also US external politics and all of this shit has been cheerled by the biggest names in Silicon Valley.
Hey remember when Peter Theil said we should get rid of democracy and Paul Graham said "we aren't going to like, stop giving money to people because of their opinions"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when the A in A16Z ran the futurist manifesto through a thesaurus?
Remember when Musk spent a quarter billion dollars to ensure this exact outcome?
There's tons of stuff on HN that I don't come here to read
You can always downvote or skip the article. Flagging it makes the decision for everyone else.
Since you're so concerned about the rules, do you mind outlining the ones regarding comment quality, topicality, and personal attacks?
The destruction of a democracy is not left, nor is it right.
It is insane that federal agents are allowed to roam around in masks, without ID and just arrest people.
Even more insane that the lack of accountability means that common criminals and vigilantes pose as federal agents to kidnap or rob people. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/us/ice-impersonators-on-the-r...
Any agent of the state. If I were King(TM) it wouldn't even be possible to call in an anonymous tip to the most mundane of local government offices. Sure a few people would get some retribution initially but eventually it'd result in better alignment between the interests of the state and people. Anything not worth doing fully above the table isn't worth doing.
It's also insane that state governors haven't deployed their national guards to keep the peace against these lawless masked kidnap gangs [0]. Arrest them with guns drawn like any other violent criminals in the act, and keep them in jail until state judges can review the details of their situation.
This applies more to other kidnappings and less here, because this happened in a fascist-controlled building. But the point is we need to start drawing these types of hard dividing lines based on state authority following the law in good faith, rather than deferring to an autocratic federal executive that increasingly interprets it in bad faith.
[0] sorry fascism-cheerleaders - without uniforms, legal documentation of their authority, accountability to bystanders, and duly-issued arrest warrants, this is what they are.
The speed with which other Americans went from 'we need guns to protect ourselves from the feds trampling over our rights' to 'federal agents bagging someone with zero identification or justification is OK actually' really does go to show how much of that was bluster. It's obvious to me that if federal agents weren't concerned with backlash for obviously illegal actions they would properly present themselves.
The true reason for this is that there are two (basically) groups of people in the US. The group that is pro gun might be opposed to this, but are not going to directly use weapons to defend themselves unless targeted. And they are not being targeted in this situation, so we don't see that coming into play.
100% - one recent comment by Kevin Sorbo sadly nails it:
> “Is your freedom more important than my safety?!”
> I don’t know you, my lunch is more important to me than you are.
They arent.
They need probable cause to arrest just like any other law enforcement. If they just arrest you because you're annoying or fake charges. You can sue them for deprivation of rights.
They are, it could be that the vast majority are acting in good faith, but the videos show a very different story. There is also no statement from ICE renouncing bad behavior from their agents.
Also, you are going to have a hard time suing if you are an El Salvadorian prison.
Except that is not what is happening. Usually, if you're arrested in the process of them trying to simply make space to carry out their official business, you just get removed and released. That is what is happening here. Contrary to various claims that citizens are being 'deported' en masse. Fewer than 70 out of millions of deportations last year were US citizens. These were either mistakes or had good reasons (such as minor citizen children).
>Of course, all that assumes the detainee is given due process.
Well I got downvoted and everyone like you seem to think due process has been suspended.
Literally before I posted the guy had been released.
""I am just fine, I lost a button, but I'm going to sleep in my bed tonight.""
US citizens have already been arrested and ICE has tried to deport them.
Multiple US citizens in Los Angeles were recently arrested on the street. Whole thing was caught on camera. Dudes are literally yelling, "I'm a US citizen, I was born here" and the ICE folks didn't give a crap.
There’s a lot we don’t know about the composition of the group here.
The Trump administration has been routinely embedding other agencies like the FBI in ICE operations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ice-oper...
Impeding federal law enforcement officers is a crime - to which other federal officers (not sure about ICE) have the ability to make an arrest.
> You can sue them for deprivation of rights.
Common refrain in these reports, "Was refused access to counsel, and loaded onto a plane/taken to a facility".
As a legal immigrant who waited years to get my citizenship let's adjust some words here:
"It's insane illegal immigrants are allowed to roam around without ID and commit theft by subsisting on the programs legal immigrants pay for."
The two "insanities" are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, I agree with you that illegal immigrants abuse the system and unfairly consume resources. I also agree with the parent comment that people acting as a police force (i.e., ICE) should carry and present ID.
As a legal immigrant who waited years to get my citizenship lets point out that most of those immigrants actually pay for the same programs too, though not always "in their name". Undocumented immigrants still pay tax and deductions on their paychecks, too.
Go forth and arrest 3000 people a day, says Trump.. I assume performance is tied to that 40k bonus they're supposed to be getting under the big beautiful bullshit bill? Are they being paid a performance bonus? An incentive to put anyone in cuffs if they don't care about how its done. History will not be kind to those amoebas.
[actual] Brad Lander Detained by Masked Federal Agents Inside Immigration Court
https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/06/17/brad-lander-arrest-ice-im...
“The federal agents escorted him into an elevator, with one member of his NYPD security detail alongside him.”
It sounds as if the “security detail” failed at protecting their protectee.
The entire framing of this article fact that we don't even know the name of whoever he was trying to protect tells you a lot.
Clearly we're not meant to be upset that fed-cops can behave this way generally, we're meant to be upset that they dared treat another agent of the state, a more equal animal, the way they'd treat a common peasant who got similarly uppity. Caring about these generalities is outside our lane.
> we're meant to be upset that they dared treat another agent of the state,
I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.
> I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.
Some basic facts are true here:
a) Brad Lander had no official capacity in that situation.
b) As a random person, he had no right to demand to see any documents, whatsoever, from the people doing the arrest.
c) Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.
You don't just get to throw yourself in the middle of a law-enforcement action without consequence because you're a politician (or upset, or "moral", or...)
---
Edit: folks, read the article and watch the video [1]. A lot of you are just repeating things that plainly aren't true. Lander was in a federal courthouse. Uniformed police officers were present, and participated in his arrest. He had just attended the trial of the person being detained. There's simply no reasonable way that Lander believed that this was a "kidnapping", as many of you are saying. He knew exactly what was going on, and he knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact that cameras were there certainly wasn't a coincidence.
[1] https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hea...
This "let them do it, and try to rectify wrongs later" model is why we end up with innocent gay hairdressers in CECOT.
There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".
Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.
The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
All he did was link arms with another person. Everyone has the right to link arms with another person.
If law enforcement wants him to stop doing that, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to prove that they actually have the authority to do so.
> Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.
Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.
If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone, citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Just stand back and watch? That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?
He's still a 99:1 bet. Get in now, if you feel that way.
https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-win-dem-nomination-for...
Editorializing what, exactly? The rule of law?
"what they were doing" is attempting to illegally abduct someone. The comptroller's "impeding" was a demand to see the one thing that would make their request a legal arrest.
Instead, they arrested the comptroller without even a pretense of the law.
I am not seeing the "assaulting law enforcement" in this video -- am I missing something?
He wasn't hiding anyone. He was out in a hallway, along with the person he had linked arms with. Watch the video.
He was refusing to unlink his arm from the person ICE wanted to detain until ICE presented documentation establishing the legality of what they were doing. It was a perfectly reasonable request.
I don't think that's the point of the article -- I suspect it's more that the average New Yorker reading this NYC news site already knows who Brad Lander is.
(You can also easily imagine why it wouldn't be ideal to publish the name of someone who is actively being harassed by masked thugs.)
>(You can also easily imagine why it wouldn't be ideal to publish the name of someone who is actively being harassed by masked thugs.)
If I were being mistreated by enforcers I would want my name anywhere and everywhere. Public scrutiny is one's only hope when government seeks to mistreat you.
Consider the degree to which we’ve already seen vigilantes attempting what they term immigration enforcement, targeted assassination of political enemies, a president pardoning those who commit violence on behalf of his causes, and federal law enforcement repurposed to harass opponents or hustle inconvenient arrestees out of the country where they can be held incommunicado. It seems pretty reasonable to me to that many people without a huge degree of privilege would want to avoid the risk of drawing fire like that.
I think this qualifies as public scrutiny. But also: you're presumably a citizen/national, like me, so you're not coming at this from a "they're going to kidnap my family to punish me for being visible" angle. That's been the recent trend for non-citizens/nationals.
not just government enforcers, any kind of criminal enterprise too.
If I was ever blackmailed with "do X or we will kill Y", the first thing I would do is to tell the entire world. This would massively increase the risks associated with actually killing that person, as then the police would immediately know who to suspect.
This is Trump attacking Democratic strongholds by arresting their leaders.
News is written for lowest common denominator, appealing to emotional narratives. [More] news at 11. Stop trying to point to the media's hypocrisy as if it justifies rejecting the overall message. I don't like that elected officials are of a higher class either, but the plain fact is they are. We need to work with this to point out how out of control this administration is.
Sometimes, criticism is poised to cause reform. Currently, it's poised to support the fascist takeover in progress. Having to circle the wagons sucks as it further empowers the authoritarians on our side, but at this point it is what it is - traditional American governance (with all of its warts and flaws) versus autocratic fascism red in tooth and claw.
There's a thing I don't get, as a non-USAmerican.
If someone unidentified, masked, showing no warrant, no legal justification of anything, kidnaps/attempts to kidnap someone, how are (organised) citizens not in their legitimate right to retaliate, according to what their local state allows them to?
Similarly, why/how are the law enforcement units not taking side against those kidnapping?
I mean, in my country, this would obviously call for immediate intervention of the police, but maybe that's because I'm still in a country where administrative enforcement is still ultimately under the control of the judiciary branch.
The cops personally agree with them, and so wouldn't intervene in any case.
I do think there's precedent that it's self defense to fire on an unidentified stranger who knocks on your door or tries to arrest you without showing ID, but you need to make it to court to press that defense and I can't say it's a great strategy for that reason
In theory, they are within their rights to retaliate. If an unknown person tried to kidnap you and doesn't present any form of ID, you have a very very strong case of self defense and genuine threat, and that would likely (IANAL) hold up in court if you ended up shooting them. It ended up holding up for Randy Weaver! You would want to surrender immediately upon being shown some ID, of course, but you could get away with it.
As for why law enforcement isn't taking sides, it's because doing so would basically be the start of a state succession attempt, and would bring federal agents in to take over the state. Some states have claimed they are willing to do that in certain situations (Alaska has said in the past it will use state troopers against government if they try to enact certain gun control laws), but no one is willing to go there yet. The best they can do now is categorically refuse to assist the feds.
But how do they know those are federal agents?
I mean, if masked, unidentified people are kidnapping other people, what prevents _other_ masked, unidentified people to attack the kidnappers?
Where this goes, as I understand it from my European heritage, is that you are _already_ in a situation where there's a strong incentive for an active resistance force to appear.
ICE is clearly working as both an oppressive force, and as an incitement to violence. There have been precedents in history. It never ended well for _them_.
If you're asking why the state isn't stopping them, that is part of the power asymmetry between states and the federal government. The federal government can, effectively, do whatever the hell it wants with no punishment because of a number of emergent reasons. States cannot, and if they attempted to would get dog piled by a dozen different checks and balances metrics.
If you're referring to why a civilian milita isn't spinning to to stop them, that's because there are (basically) two groups of people in the US. The type that are strongly pro gun, pro militia, and have knowledge in both are generally actually supportive of this particular case, and furthermore wouldn't act anyway unless they or people they like were directly targeted. This is an unfortunate cultural aspect of the US, and correcting it would have a lag time of many decades. Furthermore, the groups that did attempt to correct it got crushed by the federal government for a few decades (see the MOVE bombings, and the Black Partners history), so are extra behind. However, spinning up a small militia for directly opposing this may happen. It would look similar to the CHAZ, but that requires a large group of dedicated and motivated people to spontaneously group together.
Well, read the next paragraph. It's clearly an acknowledgment of privilege and an appeal:
“I know I will get due process and that my rights will be protected,” Lander said to a throng of supporters who gathered spontaneously in Foley Square that evening after his release.
“But Edgardo will sleep in an ICE detention facility God knows where tonight…he has been stripped of his due process rights in a country that is supposed to be founded on equal justice under law,” Lander continued, naming the immigrant detained by federal agents at the same time the comptroller was taken into custody.So I ask this question in good faith: What are the due process rights that have been taken away? What is this administration doing different from the prior ones in regards to detaining suspected illegal immigrants? While I don't doubt there could be something, I haven't seen a coherent answer to this question.
I am happy to change my mind, but in this situation all I see is a political candidate interfering with federal agents and getting arrested for it. I see lots of really questionable things happening, like these agents wearing masks and dressing in hoodies, but mentioning that does not address the due process question. If someone could address this point directly and without hyperbole, I am eager to be better informed about it.
They're deporting them without trial. They don't even try to confirm they capture the right people. They've arrested several US citizens. Notice where this arrest occurred: at a courthouse. Why? Because this person was complying with the law and going through the immigration process.
What about masked men kidnapping random people, then sending them somewhere like a prison in El Salvador seems just to you? Do you remember this happening previously in your life?
Nah, they are completely in the control of Stephen Miller. This is the way he wants it.
Call your elected representatives. Attend a protest. Make noise. Above all else, protect your family, friends, and neighbors.
We do not have to sit back and let this happen.
Elected representatives are going to be intransigent until a point in the very near future, when they realize they're about to be voted out en masse and their voters don't like them as much as they like another guy -- who isn't going to be on the ballot with them. So keep reminding them.
That happened - it was 2024. It's really seeming like Democrat politicians don't actually care about winning elections. They did terribly and they're still doing terribly and not acknowledging they're doing terribly, when they should have the easiest job in the world running against Trump.
they did just shoot two elected representatives so I think we're a little beyond protests working
The scale of the protests means the protests are already working. They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events.
I don’t see a connection between their efficacy and what happened in Minnesota, which was an event that is arguably all the more reason to protest.
Good strategy if voting is still allowed in 2028, not super useful if political violence bubbles over into a coup or such.
The scale of the protests is encouraging, but I remember the mass protests under Bush were about as large, and the war continued and he stayed in power. Organization needs to do something with the mass of people who are out in the streets to direct them.
Working to accomplish what goal for whom?
I think largely they have not yet been effective at protecting immigrants.
> They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events.
Right, so to some degree they "work" as tools for existing political groups in attracting attention, resources and possibly votes. But does it better enable those groups to actually help immigrants? Or does it just give political organizations a powerful talking point in the midterms?
People power - that was an excellent display of it this last weekend. BLM, Civil Rights Movement, and Vietnam are the only ones comparable. All of those built up - Vietnam was bc it was the first time people could see war like that, and we were sending lottery drafted 18 year olds - those very big deals.
This is solely in response to what has happened since January 21st of this year.
That's incredible actually. Concerning for sure if you planned on people being sheep.
When someone attempted to assassinate Trump would you have lumped all of those against Trump into "they"?
I don't support what the current administration is doing; not by a long shot. But to say, "they did just shoot two elected representatives," is disingenuous at best.
I have lumped every people with roughly the same ideology as the Trump shooter in a 'they'.
I don't remember the exact sentence but it was something like that: "That's the issue with pandering to violent conspiracy theorists, if they feel betrayed they will aim that violence at you".
Do you disagree with this characterization?
Publicly they'll wring their hands and tell us a bunch of BS about how violence outside of the state is bad and whatnot but behind the scenes they'll go back to their research people and their focus groups and try and get to the bottom of whether it was just one crazy or an outlier who's of an existing trend in opinion they ought to care about. Same as they did when that CEO got shot.
Only one person shot two elected representatives, and AFAIK, his pronouns are not "they". There is zero evidence that he is part of some larger plan, and I have seen zero evidence of anyone cheering on his heinous acts (unlike with a recent left-wing murderer, who was lauded as upstanding and handsome).
I watched large portions of the right wing immediately denounce the killings as a left-wing assassination. I don't think any of these people truly believed that left-wing assassins conducted a targeted execution of two Democrats in a tightly-divided R/D state legislature: I think it was a very deliberate effort to confuse the news reporting and minimize the damage of their divisive rhetoric, until something else (a war) pushed it out of the spotlight.
TBH, I want such reps to be loud about that. We need to stop pretending that the right is not leveraging stochastic terrorism. The problem doesn't go away by ignoring it.
Yes, that's risky. Some people might get hurt. A lot of people are being hurt, and will continue to be hurt, by the current situation. We all have to make our own choices about when principles and long-term outcomes outweigh our instinct for self preservation.
It seems like it would be possible for state and local forces (police) to arrest and imprison ICE agents that are acting illegally. Specifically, arrest them for kidnapping when the nab people off the streets. Sure, they'll get out because they can lie and pretend they have cause; but they could be locked up for a while at least. And do it enough, and maybe they'll start thinking twice before acting stupid.
Your outrage is not that ICE is acting illegally but that they are enforcing US law. Having local law enforcement launch some kind of insurrection is the kind of myopic nonsense you would have condemned a few years ago, even months. Heck, for the last 50 years the Imperial Presidency also was a bipartisan consensus.
It looks different when it's your ox getting gored, but the solution is actually temperance, restraint and dialog.
This is the natural end result of giving the president qualified immunity for acts in office. There is now no reason for them to follow the law.
The actual title of the acticle is "Brad Lander Detained by Masked Federal Agents Inside Immigration Court".
Contrary to the current title here on HN, Lander was not arrested for asking to see a warrant; TFA states the opposite, "It wasn’t immediately clear what charges, if any, the mayoral candidate will face. A spokesperson for ICE didn’t immediately return a request for comment."
If an event is so important to know about, why fabricate such an important aspect of the event in this way?