Comment by Perceval

Comment by Perceval 5 days ago

Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

sgarland 4 days ago

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

…

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

…

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

- Some insurrectionists

Reply View 0 replies

cucumber3732842 4 days ago

>What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

I disagree. If the feds, or any law enforcement, wants to enforce law that is so unpopular that people feel compelled to make it hard in this way then, IDK, sucks for them. Go beg for more budget.

And I feel this way about a whole ton of categories of law, not just The Current Thing (TM).

A huge reason that law and government in this country is so f-ed up is that people, states, municipalities and big corporations in particular, just roll over and take it because that keeps the $$ flowing. A solid majority of the stuff the feds force upon the nation in the form of "do X, get a big enough tax break you can't compete without it" or "enforce Y if you want your government to qualify for fed $$" would not be support and could not be enforced if it had to be done so overtly, with enforcers paid to enforce it, rather than backhandedly by quasi deputizing other entities in exchange for $$.

Reply View 6 replies

dolni 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 5 replies
- bdhe 4 days ago
  
  > However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists
  Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)
  If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?
  Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  JuniperMesos 3 days ago
  
  > Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)
  Yes, I think there would've been massive protests against the US federal government doing anything at all to be effective at deporting illegal immigrants. Significant numbers of ideologically-dedicated people think that not allowing foreigners to immigrate to the US or deporting foreigners who have illegally immigrated is an immoral, Nazi-equivalent policy that they have a moral obligation to disrupt. The masks and other shows of force from federal immigration enforcement are a reaction to the protests designed to keep individual ICE agents safe and effective; and to demonstrate to illegal immigrants that the federal government is serious about deporting them, violently if necessary, in order to try to incentivize them to leave voluntarily.
  > Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.
  We're not talking about an interpersonal relationship, we're talking about mass political actions and the authority of national-scale governments.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- florkbork 4 days ago
  
  Factually incorrect.
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...
  > Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  dolni 4 days ago
  
  We are talking about two different things.
  I am talking about American support for a working legal immigration process, and enforcing that process. Not everyone agrees about exactly what it should look like.
  I'm not talking specifically about the actions Trump is taking or the job ICE is doing currently. The current sentiment around ICE is very negative.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago
  
  To me the obvious synthesis is that the Trump-sphere was lying about what immigration enforcement means, and the public is unhappy when they're shown what Stephen Miller and friends understand enforcing immigration law to mean.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

MSFT_Edging 4 days ago

Martin Luther King said while all should aim to follow the law and obey, if a law is unjust then one should break it proudly and in the open.

Militarized police with general warrants going door to door, going into schools, hospitals, places of worship to detain the dehumanized untermensch is legal.

People loudly protesting and sabotaging these efforts via their first amendment is a far more moral and honorable stance, despite being illegal in a round-about way.

It's quite literally a protest against state violence via non-violent means.

Reply View 0 replies

quickthrowman 4 days ago

> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity.

I am unwilling to risk protesting against this administration given the combination of facial scanning, IMSI catchers, ALPRs, and surveillance cameras in general. I cannot think of a way to stay truly anonymous when protesting, with enough access and time, you could be tracked back to your home even if you leave your phone at home and take public transportation. I believe the aforementioned technology chills free speech in combination with the current administration.

I’m not particularly worried about protesters being targeted by this administration, I worry about future administrations that could be far worse.

Reply View 0 replies

themafia 4 days ago

> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually

Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd.

> of a self-governing people

This describes the majority not the individual.

> and petition the government

There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this.

> to prevent the enforcement of law.

How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.

Reply View 39 replies

account42 4 days ago

> How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.

Reply View | 38 replies
- VBprogrammer 4 days ago
  
  Law enforcement only works when the people have trust in those doing the enforcement.
  ICE have lost the trust of a significant portion of the people in Minnesota because they are using unreasonable force, eroding constitutionally protected rights and behaving with impunity.
  They are, in reality, just conducting a politically motivated campaign of harassment. If they truly wanted to deport as many people as possible they'd start with border states like Florida and Texas, places with 20x more undocumented immigrants.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  NickC25 4 days ago
  
  Or, get this - they'd go after the people who employ illegal immigrants en masse in those states.
  Illegal immigrants aren't a thing at any meaningful scale if there aren't people willing to hire them.
  But since a lot of those businesses that hire illegally or "look the other way" are BIG republican donors in deep red states....we can't do anything about it.
  We should have made e-verify the federal minimum standard for ALL employment as far back as 1985. We had the tech and the ability.
  Y'all honestly think Donald Trump hires blue-blooded WASPs to mow the lawns at his golf courses?
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  zahlman 4 days ago
  
  [flagged]
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago
  
  > They have not used the same force in other states, because the resistance to their presence and purpose has not been so strong as to motivate it.
  The resistance to their actions is lesser in other states because they are more subdued. The propaganda that Minnesotans are not working with ICE is flipping the narrative from the reality that ICE is not working with Minnesotans.
  > Narratives surrounding this are ignoring clear causes of action that are not in fact constitutionally protected, instead pointing at things protesters did that are constitutionally protected but not in fact related to arrests.
  Counter-narratives ignore clear use of tactics which have been documented as intentional escalations, instead pointing at the officers' emotions that were direct results of said escalations.
  > The judicial system takes time.
  https://thefederalnewswire.com/stories/673148305-fbi-announc...
  https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/fbi-agent-ice-shooting...
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- fc417fc802 4 days ago
  
  > It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
  I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power.
  To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- cogman10 4 days ago
  
  > Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them.
  Seems completely reasonable given ICE is murdering, arresting, and deporting citizens and legal residents.
  The government wronging 1 person to rightfully enforce the law on 10 is unacceptable.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- AppleAtCha 4 days ago
  
  IANAL but I don't think it's so cut and dried that creating a crowdsourced map of publicly visible ice operations is illegal. Yes such a map could be used by illegal immigrants to avoid detention. It could also be used by law abiding citizens that want to avoid the hubbub these operations cause or by legal us citizens that don't wanna be targeted just for being in the neighborhood. It seems like a decent lawyer could make a case that publishing the location of an ice operation is not the same as acting with intent to interfere with the operation.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- direwolf20 4 days ago
  
  Which law makes it illegal to track ICE? If there isn't a law against it, but you think the government should arrest people for it anyway, then you don't support rule of law.
  
  Reply View | 14 replies
  
  VBprogrammer 4 days ago
  
  The obvious retort is "obstruction". Of course it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because courts have consistently held that obstruction has to be a physical act. Simply being nearby, filming or calling them names doesn't count.
  
  Reply View | 13 replies
- dTal 4 days ago
  
  Rule of law? Innocent people are being shot.
  
  Reply View | 11 replies
  
  account42 4 days ago
  
  Wile I don't think they deserved to loose their lives over it, calling them "innocent" is quite dishonest. They were at the very least intentionally being a nuisance and in most cases breaking actual laws in the process.
  
  Reply View | 10 replies
- nobody9999 4 days ago
  
  >Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
  By your logic, combined with the actions of the ICE folks in Minneapolis, anyone who submits the location of a DUI checkpoint into Waze[0] should be summarily executed?
  Is that your argument? ICE has murdered people for documenting their locations and actions which, by your statement was to allow others to "dodge" law enforcement.
  Documenting a DUI checkpoint does exactly the same thing. So. If your position is that law "enforcement" is allowed to summarily shoot to death folks who document their actions and locations in one context, then they should be allowed to do so in other, more serious contexts like DUI checkpoints.
  Is that your claim? If not, please do provide some nuance around what you said, because that's how I understood your statements.
  [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- florkbork 4 days ago
  
  Nonsense.
  ICE are engaging in violence, warrantless forced entry to homes, at least two shootings that border on murder, they even tried to force entry into an Ecuadorian embassy.
  They are detaining citizens at random, relocating them physically and in some cases releasing them; if they don't die in detention due to lack of access to medical care.
  If you cannot see how these activities should be observed, documented, protested whilst still standing for professed Amercian values...
  Edit: Ah excellent, downvotes without reply because facts are... uncomfortable!
  Here's the sources:
  https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/ice-agents-blocked-from-... - Ecuadorian consulate.
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-u-s-citizen-says-ice-f... - warrantless entry
  https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-... - many, many US citizens detained only for charges to vanish at the merest scrutiny
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/27/five-year-ol... - deporting citizens
  https://newrepublic.com/post/205458/ice-detainees-pay-for-me... - cutting off medical care
  https://abcnews.go.com/US/detainees-heard-cuban-man-slammed-... - deaths in custody
  
  Reply View | 0 replies