> In the past week alone, ICE boxed in a Woodbury real estate agent recording their movements from his car, slammed him to the ground and detained him at the Whipple Federal Building near Fort Snelling for 10 hours. A 51-year-old teacher patrolling the Nokomis East community told the Star Tribune she was run off the road into a snowbank by ICE for laying on her horn. Officers shattered the car window of a woman attempting to drive past a raid in south Minneapolis to get to a doctor’s appointment nearby, then carried her through the street. Feds pushed an unidentified motorist through a red light into a busy intersection, reportedly fired projectiles at a pedestrian walking “too slowly” in a crosswalk and shoved Minneapolis City Council President Elliott Payne while he was observing their actions from a public sidewalk.
You can read the full thing here: https://www.startribune.com/have-yall-not-learned-federal-ag...
Assuming that the “carried the woman through the street” is the same case as the video I watched, she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic, as she wasn’t continuing to drive down the street despite the road being clear with no vehicles ahead of her. She then is removed from the car by force and refuses to move, requiring her to be carried.
Maybe you’ll be lucky enough to get picked up so you can get your proof.
You are lying. She waited for the pedestrian to cross.
Also, obstructing traffic is not valid reason to be violent against someone. ICE or cops being violent in that situation is them abusing their power big time. So, again, we are back to Brownshirts comparison.
That way we can be sure that we’re discussing the same thing.
Why are Americans so passive? You're literally transitioning into straight up authoritarianism, yet where are the riots? How are you not fighting back with more than whistles and blocking them in cars? Is there more stuff actually happening on the ground, but there simply isn't any videos of it, or are people really this passive in the land of the free?
Are people inside the country not getting the same news we're getting on the outside? Are you not witnessing your government carrying out extra-judicial murders and then being protected by that same government? I'm really lost trying to understand how the average person (like you reading this) isn't out on the streets trying to defend what I thought your country was all about.
Population density and the gigantic geographic distance make these kinds of events feel "remote" even if they are happening in our same state.
It's a 17 hour drive from Atlanta, Georgia to Minneapolis for example.
On top of that, a lot of Americans are just barely surviving financially, so they are in full bunker mode just making rent.
It's a scary time to rebel.
I care about people but I don't give a fuck about my country. It's just a place to live. If it gets too bad I'll move my family elsewhere.
Also, this whole checks and balances thing we learned about in school will surely kick in sometime soon...
- The American political system has been very successful in telling its people that the only acceptable way to show discontent and enact change is by voting on elections.
- Lots of people are okay with it because it can only happen to the "bad guys", and why would it ever happen to them since they're the "good guys"... right?
It isn't though, Google Maps estimate going West>East coast in the US to take 44 hours (pure driving without stops), and puts going from the South of Spain to the North of Sweden to take 50 hours, more or less the same.
Then Europe is a bunch of countries, most of them speaking different languages, with way more difference in culture than the states of the US. I'm not sure it matters though, it really isn't relevant, but probably the wrong thing to bring up regardless, when the reality looks the opposite than you seem to think.
FWIW, when the (last) civil war in Spain happened, you had volunteer civilians coming from Sweden (among other countries) to defend their ideals, even if it wasn't their fight, completely different culture and language. But if you care about something bigger than yourself, then you act.
"My country is large" isn't an excuse to not stand up against tyranny, not sure in what world it would be.
The whole "just barely surviving financially" sucks though, especially considering the poor labor movements and almost non-existing union support, and poor grassroot organization. It always felt weird and artificially suppressed, but without those thing, it certainly seems easier to take over an entire country. Hope others learned their lessons with this.
Whether you believe the economic human factory farm that is the US is worth saving or preserving will be a function of your lived experience and mental model. "What are you optimizing for?"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-p...
> Gov. Ron DeSantis said that drivers will not be at fault if they hit protesters that block roadways in a clip that took social media by storm.
I would also say that Trump and his cronies would absolutely love if this boils over into a violent riot. That would give them permission to double down.
Exactly, so why not go out on the streets and actually defend those things then? Currently your (presumed) inaction will cause those to be harmed, you're not "saving those" by saying and doing nothing, you're effectively giving them away if you don't actively protect them.
point being, given that ice is going after non-whites and is getting by, a spanish ice will get by too, with probably more ease.
But that pushback can look different. Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.
The truth is the land of the free has always been quite conservative. Which frankly, is true of most societies. In many ways that's what a society is.
Worse still, ICE stomping people out in the street is what freedom means to a vast swath of Americans. The rest are scared and leaderless and let down by an opposition that betrays their trust at every turn.
And yes Europeans keep telling Americans how to protest, but really they are little better. "Far right" candidates are already projecting big wins in the UK today. To say nothing of the victories far right parties have already secured in Europe. Spain is more familiar with blatant facisim and totalitarianism than Americans are. So idk... imo Europeans really pat themselves on the back too much... what would you do?
Provoking a riot is of questionable value anyway when he won a pretty convincing national victory at the polls just a year ago... no one has any answers as far as I can see, only empty expressions of anger... protest harder means what? I think a better start would be a coherent, defensible list of demands than anyone from a governor to a street activist can convey intelligently. Then you can try to enforce it.
But ultimately you can't muster more force than the state. If that is your only suggestion then it's a fruitless one.
Call it selfish if you want (hell, I'd even agree with you) but my priority is my family and my life. This idea that I have to care about "my country" is patriotic BS pounded into us to make it more likely to join the army.
Are you saying USA, in the majority, is still imperialist? Is still racist? Is still white supremacist?
That's the thing, they do, and have in the past too. Some might even recall riots ~70 years ago that kind of spiraled out of control and led to a civil war.
Looking at what's happening in Iran as we speak might be a good idea as well, where they've had enough, know that there is a good chance of their regime literally executing them on the spot, yet they're brave enough to continue fighting, because they realize what's at stake, and have run out of other options.
> The ICE officers are armed and absolutely will use their weapons if given half a chance to
So this was the whole point with the 2nd amendment right, that when/if the government repress you in that way, you have weapons to fight back? Or am I misunderstanding what that part is/was about?
But then I still hear people say that this is what the 2nd amendment is for... Meanwhile, to make sure they have the heavier weapons, law enforcement goes absolutely bananas on what they carry.
The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.
Because it’s cold? Here in Minnesota it’s 17F / -7C. Factoring in the wind chill it feels like 7F / -14C.
There are other reasons too of course (geography, lack of urban density, distrust of news, apathy, etc etc) but I think the weather is a definite factor right now.
But I'd say that usually when there are large issues impacting large parts of the population, then you can be pretty sure that there will be country-wide protests against it, many times with smaller violent elements, because people here make their opinions and feelings known.
Democracy, authoritarianism are all abstract and vague concepts
the country is very low-density, there's no one obvious point to protest (there was Occupy Wall Street... and then the Seattle TAZ and .... that's it, oh and the Capitol January 6th), strikes and unions are legally neutered, it's just not the American way anymore
the country has a lot of experience "managing" internal unpleasantry, see the time leading up to the civil war, and then the reconstruction, and then there was a lull as the innovation in racism led to legalized economic racism (the usual walking while black "crimes", vagrancy laws, etc), and then the civil rights era, with the riots, and since then (and as always) police brutality is used as a substitute to training and funding
Has it? Because I recall a bunch of people gathering in the wrong building on Jan 6
Protesting does do something though, the very least showing other people a direction to go in, to at least show something. It's hard to argue it does nothing, because images and videos do end up on social media and the news, and you really need the rest of the population on your side, if you actually want to change stuff.
You know what actually doesn't do a damn thing? Not doing a damn thing. Literally anything is better than nothing, just showing support is better than nothing. Talking about it is better than nothing.
A lot of people here _enjoy_ the authoritarianism, judging by the votes, the voter turnout, and the private discussions I've had with my neighbors. They believe this is good for the country and that there'll be more opportunities for their kids.
A lot of other people are holding out for the midterm elections, to see if the will of the majority shifts, because otherwise its risks open civil war. And maybe just a touch of American exceptionalism—this can't actually be happening here, it'll all blow over—and distrust in the story that the media is feeding them is accurate.
And some are just fatalistic, this isn't really a surprising turn of events. America has been creeping toward this for more than a few decades, since Regan at the very least.
Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell.
Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike, and you'll see changes quickly as the upper-class can no longer enjoy their status.
My counter-hypothesis is that America has never really known authoritarianism, religious wars, etc., so Americans are, on average, more supportive of Authority.
The political class is very well insulated from the popular will in this country, and I fear we may be nearing the boiling point.
Hah, funny you bring up the name of a neighbor :)
I'm not sure that's even in the same class of issues as what's happening in the US and frankly, a bit surprising to hear. Have you seen/been with ultras in the Nordics? Even been to derbies played in Copa Libertadores? Both of those I'd immediately rank as way more violent than what we see here in Spain.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
1. Americans on the ground are clearly feeling the effects of illegal immigration. As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there. In that election we've seen nearly every demographic move more republican than before, and I think this is the key issue for them.
2. In that context, when ICE does something, even when we don't like it, people can understand it in the context of a larger problem they/we want solved. When you perceive "passivity" - it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved which is fine, but it's different for people who like "what" is happening even if not "how" it's happening.
3. There are plenty of people protesting and violently rioting if that's what they feel like.
That's fair. And I'm talking about it right now and everywhere else I can in safe ways.
As far as protesting goes, I agree with you. It is better than nothing. It does help show people they're not alone. But as I said mentioned, this isn't happening where I live. It would literally take me days to travel to Milwaukee or another hotbed. Some people are stronger than me and take time off and make other sacrifices to attend rallies, and I admire those people, but it's not feasible for me. Or I suppose a more truthful way of saying it is it's not worth it for me because of the sacrifices I'd have to make just for the chance of getting hurt or being added to a list.
Decades of copaganda paired with police brutality. A fairly large portion of americans view anyone with a badge as "the good guy" by default.
But, I think people are also fearful about what happens after the riots start. Nobody is excited about Trump using a riot as an excuse to declare martial law and deploy the military everywhere. There's still some hope that cities and states will step up and do their job. These ICE agents can and should be prosecuted.
> Are people inside the country not getting the same news we're getting on the outside?
They aren't. And unfortunately a LOT of US media is sanewashing. We have dedicated channels like fox news which are basically framing everything as "violent protesters attacking the police for trying to arrest bad guys". But even centrist and slightly left mainstream media is bending over backwards to give excuses and "both sides" this. Doing things like using a lot of passive language or just not reporting on the raids all together. You basically need to be online or tuned in to alternative media to learn about this stuff.
There's also the very simple and real fact that fascists already have the power. People are scared. There's about 30% of the citizenship who could literally drive a car through a protest or open up fire who'd be completely protected by the state for those actions. Most of the people that'd do that are already employed by ICE.
There's certainly more cultural similarity across the US, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sense of emotional and geographic distance. Remember that the typical riot participant is not a political theorist who has some deep theory of how discharging their duty will enact change, just an average guy who's mad as hell about what's happening and not going to take it anymore.
As a person who has been involved with an riot in a small town, I think that, in the deep unconscious of most folks in the US, is something structure:
"well, there wasn't violence in the 19th and early 20th and mid 20th and late 20thC century... well okay, there was violence but they put folks who were resisting into mass graves or incarceration and everyone was better off for it".
That is, consider that the obverse of your claim might be true:
the violence committed by the US has been so totalizing that it's victims have never even counted as victims and that holocaust so complete that it only exists in the subconscious of white US citizens.
I find that idea to be a very easy way to understand why white folks are so passive and pro-authority.
Just look at this site as a sample set.
ICE are terrorizing a city and its residents no matter what their immigration status is. Even someone who strongly wishes to curb illegal immigration should have a problem with that.
Yeah we have some perks here. But they're not as rare as our propaganda would have us believe and we sure do pay for them in various ways.
> Or I suppose a more truthful way of saying it is it's not worth it for me because of the sacrifices I'd have to make just for the chance of getting hurt or being added to a list.
It's really sad to hear that the chilling effect is working so effectively. I of course understand why you make the choice you make, that's not strange, but that they managed to turn your society into this is nothing but sad to hear.
Where is this assumption coming from? Of course I don't want people to break the laws of the country or immigrate illegally, I never argued for that either.
What I don't understand, if Obama managed to throw out more illegals than Trump did for the same duration of time, yet with a lot less chaos and bloodshed, and you truly want less illegal immigrants, should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?
That would be like driving from Key West to Prudhoe Bay which looks to be 91 hours.
Sorry the US is big spread out place, but I also agree it's not really an excuse for what's happening.
Funny, because the racist authoritarians most people point to as the canonical example were themselves directly inspired by the US example. I think a more realistic reason is that this particular brand of race-heirarchy-based authoritarianism that mostly only affects white folks if they are seen as challenging what it does to everyone else has been normalized in the US since before the founding, varying only in intensity and the degree to which its intent is overly stated.
TL;DR: https://x.com/i/status/1131996074011451392
This is NOT what America is about. America is about opens history book
uh oh
Frantically starts flipping though pages
uh oh. oh no. no no no. uh oh
Basically we Americans have given up on our system. Both on the left and the right. It's why the right elected Trump, and it's why the left silently elected Trump by not voting.
Peaceful protest is the key. Riots, violence, and fighting are not peaceful and only play into the administration's aims.
When Americans resist and protest peacefully, as they have been in the largest numbers ever in the country's history, it exposes the brutality and baseness of those commiting the heinous acts.
Through such peaceful protest as we see, America will overcome this.
The big question is, what next? How to hold people accountable, fairly, while rebuilding the system and rebuilding trust?
The cultural gap is just too much. There are explosions 24/7 and the amount of trash on the street hurts my eyes. A party by my window at 2AM - check. It happens that you have a group of six guys walking down the middle of the road and the fuck are you going to do. There's only so much you can explain by poverty and lack of privilege - especially when they were born in one of the world's richest countries while the country I am from started poor but developed immensely.
When voting, immigration policies are for me #1 issue. I just don't want the entire Europe to look like this.
The flow of illegal aliens crossing the border has largely been eliminated. [1]
> should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?
I want a process that actually works. There has been no serious headway made in the number of illegal aliens for decades until now. [2]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Who are you gonna report this brutality to, when the judicial arm of the government is just following the directions of the administration? How do you hold people accountable, when the system to hold anyone accountable is being undermined?
A political solution will likely come of this, as everyone with a brain knows that the preconditions for all this shit are something that need to be prevented in the future.
Edit. To be clear, I'm talking about the people who are actually physically involved here.
The point of the second amendment was, in no small part, so that the central government wouldn't deny the states the means to commit genocide against the indigenous population on their own, because the states didn't trust he central government to be sufficiently enthusiastic about it. That was the major security concern alluded to by the “necessary to the security of a free state” bit.
And unfortunately that probably won't change until ICE kills more of them and makes it their problem.
A riot is exactly what they want.
This is all about getting locals upset enough to break things, so the administration can justify sending in the military.
Rioting just gives them what they want.
This is a tried-and-true tactic employed by thugs throughout history.
You're not fighting the upper class. It's the blue collar workers and the people who hire them who support ICE and strict immigration.
There is the imminent threat of mass death, and no one here is under any illusions about it.
Every ICE agent is armed, and most have ready access to automatic weapons. These are not well-trained members of an elite organization with a storied, patriotic culture. ICE is a personalist paramilitary organization, and the president has indicated that these ICE agents are immune from consequences, even if they kill people. These are people who volunteered knowing they were going to go into American cities and do violence to people they perceive as their political enemies.
Most of these agents are inexperienced, jittery, poorly trained new recruits away from home. They aren't locals. Their nexus of power and governance isn't local. These are not our community members, they aren't from here, they don't know us or care about us, so they do not empathize with us.
In addition to this, the American citizenry is shockingly well armed. Because everyone involved is so well armed, everybody is slightly touchy about this descending into rioting, because there is a very short path from light rioting to what would essentially amount to civil war. The costs of such any such violence will overwhelmingly be borne by the innocent people who live here, and we know it.
So, people are trying to strike a balance of making sure these people know they aren't welcome here while trying to prevent the situation from spiraling into one in which some terrified agent mag-dumps a crowd of protestors and causes a chain reaction that results in truly catastrophic mass death.
Wish us luck, we're trying.
There's an interesting other angle that I heard about "terrorizing a city" type thing -- there are many million illegal immigrants in the US who entered in just the last few years, when the prior admin did not attempt to limit. The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone. Maybe like "nobody wants to hear about an amputation" but unfortunately some situations are bad enough that you have to.
Have a good day!
On the first part, I hope the last few elections made it clear that polling is... unreliable at best. For example, asking the question like "in light of the recent shooting of Renee Good, do you feel ICE is making your city safer" vs asking "Do you feel like having removed X,XXX illegal immigrants with prior convictions has made your city safer" would yield a very different result.
For what it's worth, as an immigrant myself and a typical over-educated NY liberal (at least, formerly) I don't like the details of what's going on but I understand why it is.
Good luck. Is there anything those that aren't living in ones of these towns can do to help in impactful ways?
Mass resistance movements tend to come at unpredictable moments. The killing or particularly well documented crime of a government, for example. Something acute will trigger it, like George Floyd or Renee Good (whose murder triggered widespread outrage, protests, and despite the bots on Twitter, some shift in the view on ICE from the middle and right).
If, for example, a brigade of soldiers or officers opened live fire on protesters, I think the country would shut down.
Another point, as others have mentioned: It's actually the massive amount of armament on both side of the equation that keeps people from taking the next step. The citizens of Minneapolis could probably take out a hundred ICE agents a day, but now we're in a civil war because the next steps are insurrection act, hundreds of people dead in days, potential of the MN state guard being activated to fight against national forces, and it's already three steps ahead of whatever would happen in Spain.
edit: There are some people already exercising their rights loudly. See: https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1qdnmh...
You are fighting the upper-class, while some of the working-class people are mislead to fight on the other side. Slowly but surely they'll realize where to go, but often the promises of wealth and what not gets to strong for the individuals to at least try to move up.
I think it's important to realize how divided the U.S. is right now. Half the country is in favor of what ICE is doing in some form or another. Some people on the right are denouncing the _way_ ICE is accomplishing this. But they are far from outraged.
The other half of the country is as dumbfounded/shocked as the rest of the world.
This isn't like the French revolution where a majority of the country was suffering and rose up against the few.
This is very nearly 50% of the country wants to make the other 50% squirm.
It cannot be understated the role that Fox News has played to get us to this level of division.
The channel "The Necessary Conversation" has some good examples of just how radicalized some American's have gotten. It's 2 kids interviewing their MAGA parents. I think it's not uncommon for American's to know people like the parents in this video.
Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story. Edit: others explained that this is "work out" there, and not related to being a janitor. Thanks. I feel the rest still stands.
Further, I don't understand how what is happening is supposed to solve the "underlying issue". How does 3000 federal agents breaking windows and shoving people in Minneapolis help a Brooklyn community poor enough to become a shanty town? It would be like if I, in my job, had an backend outage on our website, and I went to the design team and began berating them while I fixed a couple UI issues. Sure, I might solve some real problems, and it could feel good in some cathartic way (especially if I've had unanswered complaints for years). But I wouldn't call it "fixing the underlying issues".
I believe it is most likely that the people who still support this style of enforcement have been hurt much like you, some acutely but many just slowly over time, and have bought into the idea that some "other" is at fault. And they want to see that "other" dealt with in some way, any way. Even if it means people get hurt, because they themselves have been hurt. So why not the "other"?
But I don't believe a shanty town in the most populous city what is supposed to be the richest and most prosperous country on Earth is caused by the poorest few percent of people living here. I don't think an illegal immigrant in Minneapolis is at fault, even if they have a "criminal background" (insidious phrasing that inflates numbers by lumping in people who may have paid their debt to society). I don't want to see people hurt.
I didn't say the American and European experiences with authoritarianism were the same, or even similar, I said the American experience with a very specific orientation of authoritarianism, with a specific focus, is extremely deep and pervasive, and that that has explanatory power on the relatively mild reaction of the American public to a change in the intensity and overtness of that particular flavor of authoritarianism.
This is, in fact, very different from the European experience.
What kind of revisionist history is this?
The feds were telling the states "screw off, we do the negotiating" before the ink was even dry on that. Steamrolling the natives was never really a seriously contested job or a point of political contention, the feds were always gonna be the ones to do it.
As well as going door-to-door and forcing entry without a warrant, besieging Spanish language immersion schools, and other dragnet horrors. Meanwhile, official DHS social media accounts are posting literal Stormfront ethnic cleansing memes. I’m not sure how anyone but the most ardent ethnonationalists can be OK with this. Even if you think all undocumented immigrants should be deported, "hunt them down like dogs and to hell with everyone else" is beastial.
Haha, yeah, at least I got a laugh from it, thank you :) A fair comparison then I guess would be from Canary Islands to Svalbard, if we're aiming to make it as far as possible to make some imaginary point no one cares about :)
It's almost flipped how the US and Europe have dealt with threats. The US has a long history of organized hate groups having the run of things. I don't Europe has experienced anything like the KKK for as long. However Europe is not far removed from fascist and authoritarian regimes. So things are more fresh in the minds of citizens and they are more likely to fight them. However when attacked through another method it subverts that and allows tacit approval from the public while their neighborhoods are transformed for the worse.
> Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story.
So just to clarify, GP said he was being prevented from _working out_, i.e. exercising.
Exactly. If people you hate are getting in a fight you're staying right there on the porch and that's how a lot of the country feels right now.
Yeah, it's been a sharp shift, as someone who've watched/read Fox News (and other news of course) for decades out of the US. Fox News always been a bit strange with it's vitriol, but at one point, I can't remember if it was around the middle of Obama's second term, or later, but it took a really sharp turn further into emotional reporting and partisanship. Again, Fox always been a bit special, and other news channels also did similar turns further into their sides, but I can remember seeing the change as it was happening.
There is another documentary I quite liked in similar vein but on an individual level, called "Dear Kelly", that follows a far-right conspiracy theorist and tries to give some understanding into Kelly's struggles and radicalization. Released independently and can be found here: https://www.dearkellyfilm.com/
It is true, we have vigilante groups going around sometimes acting violent against people they think are immigrants, it is a real problem. It isn't all across Europe, and it isn't super common, but it happens, and that's enough.
I think the difference is in who is coordinating these efforts, because none of those vigilante groups are the country's own border patrol doing that in "official business" capacity, they're small groups of individuals usually associated with some far-right political groups, rather than tax funded government groups.
If the latter were to happen, you can be pretty sure people wouldn't put up with it, because most of us realize what's coming after that, because we were all forced to study history growing up.
> So things are more fresh in the minds of citizens and they are more likely to fight them
Yeah, this seems to be a big factor, most of us here (Europe) still have parents (and grand-parents) who remember and witnessed a lot of awful shit, and growing up would immediately reprimand you if you just pretended to like that, or carry thoughts in those veins.
Truth is, lots of Americans are really divorced from the reality undocumented immigrants are facing right now. Lots of immigrants from 10-15+ years ago aren't worried if they are law abiding (anecdotal). The online rhetoric rly doesn't match daily life in my most places aside from the active hotbeds.
BEFORE this began we had 7 million people protesting simultaneously nationwide—they are "out on the street" as you put it. With protests around the country every day. Minneapolis has organized hundreds into rapid response teams against ICE. The killings get more news than the protests, particularly as much of the media has been bought up by republican owners. You seem to be missing the news, and saying it does not exist.
In Philadelphia, residents are being filmed patrolling with automatic weapons in advance of ICE supposedly heading there next. Read what @asa400, another local like myself, is saying in another comment to parent.
Many locals on social media are cheering on the shootings. America is incredibly polarized right now. It's not like all the public is against the government. Nearly half of those most likely to vote in past elections support this.
BEFORE this began we had 7 million people protesting simultaneously nationwide—they are "out on the street". Minneapolis has organized hundreds into rapid response teams against ICE. The killings get more news than the protests, particularly as much of the media has been bought up by republican owners.
In Philadelphia, residents are being filmed patrolling with automatic weapons in advance of ICE supposedly heading there next. Read what @asa400, another local like myself, is saying in another comment to parent.
Many locals on social media are cheering on the shootings. America is incredibly polarized right now. It's not like all the public is against the government. Nearly half of those most likely to vote in past elections support this. “It wasn’t Hitler or Himmler who abducted me, beat me, and shot my family. It was the shoemaker, the milkman, the neighbor, who were given a uniform....” —Karl Stojka, Auschwitz survivor EDIT: added "(reportedly)" and rearranged sentence
You ever visited Brooklyn back when it was actually a tough place?
I wonder why.
Our "leftist" or "centrist" news sources are owned by right wing billionaires. There is no real actual leftist or even centrist news source that has any sort of clout here in the US.
It absolutely is at stake, they just haven’t realized it yet. (Insert obligatory “first they came for” quote.)
The black dude I am referring to was complaining about illegals permanently camping out in his neighborhood park.
If it's a hand-carried firearm of any kind (including crew-served weapons like the M249, M240B, M60), it's not a "heavy weapon."
> The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.
At the time the Second Amendment was written, there were entire private navies with actual cannons far more destructive than any man-portable firearm available today. No background checks on those ships or cannons, either, btw.
We don't know if the shovel thing is true, video has emerged that doesn't show the shooting but does show the victim's family's 911 call in which they claim the agent shot through the door at the fleeing victim.
Worth mentioning that America does not have a protest culture like Europe. Being largely rural makes gathering for political expression impractical, and in this particular case Trump and his militias are deliberately trying to stir up chaos in order to rationalize cranking up the pressure. Protests make noise and get you targeted but what is needed now is real change.
This is what terrified me: Not that the ICE officer shot the woman in the car. But what happened afterwards. That he muttered "fucking bitch" after shooting her, that he walked nonchalantly after shooting a person, and everybody was recording him. This person goes to his car and drives just like that ...
- ICE boxed in a Woodbury real estate agent recording their movements
- She was run off the road into a snowbank by ICE for laying on her horn
- A woman attempting to drive past a raid
- Feds pushed an unidentified motorist through a red light
- Fired projectiles at a pedestrian walking “too slowly”
Say all you want about how any protest, no matter how peaceful will be vilified (it will) or about how the entire foundation is built on lies (it is), but we still have some real elections coming up, and the imagery of ICE brutalizing someone who's clearly not an immigrant, not violent, not obstructing is much more rhetorically effective than that of armed clashes between government and non-governmental forces.
And as you said, many of us are still convinced that this can be solved at least partially rhetorically and electorally.
ICE goons can shoot people because in America, law enforcement officers shooting citizens is thoroughly normalized. It's normalized because law enforcement officers getting shot is thoroughly normalized. It's normalized because the nation decided every village idiot can have a gun and the government can do nothing about it.
They are neither a reliable summary of the motivations for the provisions they support nor any kind of argument for the provisions in the Bill of Rights.
They're talking about starting wars with the rest of the occidental world. There won't be a elsewhere where you'll be welcome.
Why not? What is it about the presence of illegal immigrants in a place that makes terrorizing the entire population a good tradeoff? The people who live alongside these immigrants are the ones out on the street protesting so it seems to me they don't consider it a price worth paying.
I get that we often assume that the non-voting population is as evenly split in their support as those who voted during the election. But I think that is going to be wildly off the mark as well. Why? current presidential approval ratings are net -15%, and 2025 elections showed avg 15% swing in district that he won in 2024. His biggest support %s are from old people, and lowest among young voters.
My prediction is that we will see political ads playing non-stop showing ICE brutalizing main street America, and showing how tariff driven inflation is destroying paychecks. The mid-terms will be a dramatic correction which is why you are seeing the ground work to call everything illegitimate or rigged, and attack our established means of voting.
I don't think that folks are braodly supportive of ICE here, though I think that a) the folks who do support it are loud and b) most of the folks who don't support it have fairly reformist politics and are opposed, for instance, to us protesting while open-carrying.
For the record, I am highly worried that open-carrying by the counter-ICE folks at these events will be the next escalation- I carry a stop-the-bleed kit (and did some formal training). We are more worried about getting shot by counter protestors at this point.
going to small protests has done a lot of good for my ability to regulate. Being involved with a cadre of street medics has made me feel a little less crazy.
It's nice to get off line and into the streets- the reasons are terrifying but it feels better to be with my friends in the road than to be at home fretting about stuff and writing dumb HN responses :D
Second amendment was written for children in schools.
It's the social media evolution of non-violent confrontation, with the similar goal of making it impossible for any visual image or recording of a confrontation to seem anything other than ridiculous to the average viewer and laying bare the "violence inherent in the system" (as it were).
There is also the Cookson repeater available in the late 1600s. And in 1756 was advertised for sale in the Boston Gazette.
Multiple founding fathers, including George Washington, were also offered purchase of repeating firearms, some for use in the military, some for personal usage. But of course this is still before interchangeable parts so production is of course still expensive and repairs must be done be a highly skilled gunsmith and not just some apprentice blacksmith.
The crime by Fox News is not that they presented a viewpoint, but that they did so at scale, in a knowingly disingenuous manner, to derive financial benefit, for decades.
The other children are also cowards for not taking the legal fight over the inheritance of Fox equity to the limit.
Unless the president declares a permanent temporary state of emergency for whatever reason that would prevent such elections.
I'd take issue with that, because once it becomes an armed conflict then the full power of the state military will be deployed.
And modern nation-states of mid-size or above all have militaries than can crush any civilian armed resistance, simply because of the lethality and capability gap between civilian and military weapons.
The only winning move for a populace, then, is to try and keep resistance sub-armed conflict (and avoid being bated into armed resistance).
What I feared would happen appears to be happening on Saturday: anti-immigrant anti-muslim folks from outside the city and outside the state are gathering to rally in the Minneapolis Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and cause trouble.
The federal administration will use this to ratchet up the violence against peaceful protesters like myself, who are simply trying to stand up for our neighbors and friends and our city and our state. We have whistles and cell phones. The federal government has guns and is killing us.
The vast majority of the population is relying on these protections holding.
Not as far as I understand. The 2nd amendment was from a time when we did not have much of a standing army and the country relied on militias for firepower. Some of the proposed language for the second amendment makes this clearer, but it was cut in the final version.
The tyranny bit was probably always someone's fantasy, and the self-defense aspect is basically a shift of interpretation that is much more recent.
Who is the "We" in your statement? Are you talking about insurrection?
The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “<9,000/month”), not that the “flow” is “largely eliminated.” Encounters aren’t the same thing as total unlawful entries, and “very low” isn’t “eliminated.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
The ABC/Brookings story is about net migration turning negative in 2025, mostly due to fewer entries. Net migration is not a measure of the unauthorized population, and the article even notes removals in 2025 are only modestly higher than 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Also, the claim “no headway for decades until now” is inconsistent with standard estimates: Pew shows a decline from 2007 to 2019 in the unauthorized population. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
There is a vast difference between believing that your nation would riot hard and having to risk your own life knowing that your loved ones that would be devastated if something happens.
1) Voter turnout is always low, we'll see in 2028 if turnout is higher.
2) It's high enough to extrapolate the rest of the countries viewpoint. Meaning you cannot say that 68% would all fall one side or another.
Are you volunteering to be part of the bad solution, or is it only OK as long as it happens far enough away from you? I'm curious because when you talk about needing an amputation, you're referring to American citizens getting killed and having their rights taken away for the sake of some nebulous solution. Where have I heard that before?
"Trump won 15% of Black voters – up from 8% four years earlier. "
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/behind-trump...
That is not a civil war.
The French revolution isn't a good revolution to aspire to, no matter how satisfying it might feel to fantasize about it I assure you in hindsight your childrens' children would weep if that's what happened to you in the U.S.
Not saying justice isn't due: on the contrary we need to lean even further into this energy, to metabolize it. Not trying to preach either btw. Your rage is valid, trust me I have my own.
https://www.project2025.observer/en
The local and federal authorities are at a complete standoff right now. When's the last time you recall a local government essentially asking the court for permission to deploy its national guard to enforce a restraining order against the federal government? All while said federal government was openly conducting sloppy pseudo-urban-warfare in broad daylight?
I urge you to pay attention.
Won't happen.
You mean to try to get them all and find out they're not really against what's happening? There's a reason why socialists, originally fighters for workers' dictatorship, have almost entirely switched to supporting minorities and not workers.
Does this actually matter in practice? It seems like the administration has done a bunch of things that normally requires Congress to do something, yet they were able to and I don't see anyone getting arrested. The executive have lacked the authority for lots of things, yet it doesn't seem to stop them.
I'm not saying you're wrong, in theory. But in practice it seems like those things aren't actually stopping anyone, at least not yet.
They're gonna keep taking money from their donors and attempt to focus on anything that doesn't hurt their donors.
Much like the Republicans were before Trump.
You guys really need to do something about Citizens United.
I don't think this is the case so much as their constituents are very responsive to the messaging from their politicians and media agencies. You can watch almost in real-time as Trump supporters 180 on things that they "really care about" like the Epstein files. Like the "peace" president. Like on inflation being a major issue. You can watch Trump do something outrageous, and the conservatives online act confused for a bit until they get their messaging and then they are all repeating the exact same excuses online.
I'm sure lots of people who voted for Hitler in Germany said the same thing in hindsight. Of course they did absolutely nothing to help stop Hitler after voting for him. They just want to pretend they had nothing to do with all the bad stuff despite the vote clearly being in support of "Bad Stuff". There's a meme floating around that goes something like:
2015: You're overreacting!
2016: You're overreacting!
2017: You're overreacting!
2018: You're overreacting!
2019: You're overreacting!
2020: You're overreacting!
2021: You're overreacting!
2022: You're overreacting!
2023: You're overreacting!
2024: You're overreacting!
2025: How could we possibly have known things would have gone this way?!
If only the country wasn't systematically designed to favor conservatives. Low population states have way too much influence on this country. It's one of the reasons we're so fucking backwards compared to the rest of the world. We're held hostage in part by places like Wyoming and Nebraska. Our House representation has been capped so we're getting fucked on representation and the electoral college as well. On top of that, the conservative's willingness to lie and cheat certainly puts them at significant advantage as well. Stunts like convincing someone with the same name as your opponent to run as well in hopes of confusing the voters and splitting up votes to running as a Democrat only to switch as soon as elected.
Liberals just aren't equipped or willing to fight against conservative fuckery. If liberals fought half as hard to support their lip services towards helping people as conservatives fought for fucking people over, we might actually make progress in this country.
Life is complex and important things are always in tension.
Do I think ICE needs to deport every single illegal from this country? Yes I do. Do I think Americans have a right to protest against ICE if they don't agree with this? Yes I do.
I support both and that's fine, the challenge is what happens when these two things collide. For example, when someone's protest involves them interfering with an ICE operation, striking an officer with their vehicle (unintentionally, I think) and getting shot in the process.
That's impacted by scale. If the US had 1 illegal immigrant to catch and deport, and 100 protestors got hurt in the process, that would seem disproportionate. When we have millions of illegals to deport, 100 protestor getting hurt is still bad but is kinda inevitable in the statistical risk sense.
Do I want that to impact me? Of course not. Ideally that would have been handled years ago so we didn't have the scale of problem that necessitates an aggravated approach. But we do.
So you accept the necessity of needing to carry your papers in order to prove your citizenship, or needing to deal with door to door warrentless raids, or potentially getting your property destroyed by overzealous ICE agents with no recourse? That's my point. You are saying that the scale of the problem means it's acceptable for your rights to be trampled on. And I'm asking you personally if you're willing to be one of the sacrifices in the name of this system.
Other people here seem to think that "obstructing" something entails making it impossible to get around. That is just... not how that language ordinarily works. They also misrepresent your argument, skipping all the steps in between, as if you were asserting that people are being shot directly as a punishment for obstructing traffic. That's clearly not what anyone is saying or justifying, including the officers themselves.
This does not in any way contradict "she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic". There was a very long period in the video where there was clearly no obstruction to her driving down an empty street and multiple officers were repeatedly telling her to do so, and cars behind her were obstructed for no reason.
> Also, obstructing traffic is not valid reason to be violent against someone.
This is a complete strawman.
> ICE or cops being violent in that situation is them abusing their power big time.
ICE are cops. "She then is removed from the car by force and refuses to move, requiring her to be carried" is normal; if you are under arrest and you do not comply with the arrest, LEO are legally entitled to use the force required to enact the arrest. In this case, she had to be removed from the car because she tried to lock herself in the car, and she had to be carried because she refused to move along. That's just how arrests work.
To the extent that any of that can be called "violent", it is not a consequence of obstructing traffic. It is a consequence of resisting arrest.
The Bill of Rights was specifically designed to abrogate any possibility of infringement of those enumerated rights by an out of control State.
The law disagrees: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy...
It's very easy to find abundant sources for this.
If you're locking yourself in your car when you're under arrest, and that car is currently blocking traffic, there is no reasonable alternative to using force to get into the vehicle and take you out. Nothing else will get you out of the vehicle, and you legally must get out of the vehicle. You can't just be left there.
If you are resisting having handcuffs put on you, or refusing to walk along as you are taken to a police vehicle, there is no reasonable alternative to using force to ensure that the handcuffs go on and you get in the vehicle. Being carried is about the gentlest thing that could possibly happen.
> she was on the way to doctor stopped by armed thugs.
This is contradicted by the fact that she repeatedly refused to take a clear path when she was being told to take a clear path and the officers were not in any way preventing her from doing so.
In the same place. You just aren't seeing footage of them on HN.
> Is there more stuff actually happening on the ground
There is, and there is lots of video of it. You only need search elsewhere.
I have seen such footage. It's all over the place. I've cited examples of what I've seen in other comments. You can infer keyword search terms from the descriptions and should be able to find them readily with any search engine.
> Are you not witnessing your government carrying out extra-judicial murders and then being protected by that same government?
They are not "extra-judicial murders". The only people who have died so far have been those whose actions presented a serious threat to the life or safety of federal officers.
Anyone who disagrees with my claim is welcome to provide contradictory evidence.
These devices are over a century old: the cat's out of the bag, manufacturing technology has only gotten better and easier.
You so much as walk around with your gun in the streets of Seoul, and you will very quickly find out that the government can, in fact, do something about it, it will do something about it, the general public will side with the government against you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Gun ownership is a social construct. Where guns are banned, even criminals can't afford one, because there's no place to get these guns in the first place. Those who think they can outsmart the government will quickly find that guns out in the wild is considered a matter of national security and handled accordingly.
Only if you're caught - which requires more than magic. Shinzo Abe would disagree.
"Largely eliminated". I didn't say "completely eliminated". <9,000 per month can be considered "largely eliminated" when the previous flow was often many hundreds of thousands per month. You can see it plainly on the graph.
Yes of course encounters are not total entries. Do you have a better way of estimating?
The net migration is due to several factors. The result of "largely eliminating" the flow of illegal aliens, along with dutiful removal of those in the interior, has made a big dent. There are other factors, including legal immigration, obviously.
There were 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens here in 2007. There are MORE now. No headway has been made.
“Many hundreds of thousands per month” isn’t what the Border Patrol encounter series shows. Pew’s analysis of CBP data puts the peak at 249,741 encounters in Dec 2023, and 58,038 in Aug 2024 (a 77% drop). That’s “down sharply,” not “eliminated.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/migrant-e...
Also, 58k/month annualizes to ~700k/year. You can argue that’s a big improvement, but calling it “largely eliminated” is rhetorical.
Encounters aren’t total entries, agreed, but that cuts against confidently declaring victory, not in favor of it. If you want “better,” the only “better” conceptually is something like encounters + estimated gotaways, but “gotaways” are themselves estimates and not as consistently published/transparent as encounters. So the honest phrasing is: “recorded encounters are way down.”
“No headway for decades” is false on the standard stock estimates. Pew (and others) show the unauthorized population peaked around 2007 and then declined through 2019 before rising again in the early 2020s. That’s headway, then reversal; not “none for decades.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
It is fair to say: we’re now above 2007 again (Pew estimates ~14M in 2023), so the long-run problem wasn’t solved. But that’s different from “no headway has been made.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-...
On the ABC/Brookings “negative net migration” point: net migration does not equal unauthorized population, and the article itself notes the change is mostly fewer entries, with removals only modestly higher year over year. So it doesn’t support “dutiful removal has made a big dent” as the main story.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Why should I care about the number in August 2024? Why are you annualizing the 58k number? I'm referring to the current numbers at the border.
> During Trump's first eight months in office, there have been fewer than 9,000 illegal crossings recorded each month, CBS reported.
249,000 -> 9,000 encounters = flow across the border is "largely eliminated" to any non-pedant.
We have more illegal aliens in the country today than 2007.
2007 -> 2026 = MORE illegal aliens = no headway has been made. It's as simple as that.
Lastly, your link literally confirms what I said:
> The report attributed the shift to combination of the large drop in entries and an increase in enforcement activity leading to removals and voluntary departures.
It's so refreshing to finally have someone at least attempt to tackle this issue (likely the main issues in the 2016 and 2024 elections). I just wish it was more widespread and less theatrical.
Your own cited stat (“<9,000/month”) is Border Patrol apprehensions between ports of entry. CBS is explicit about that, and even gives the recent months: July ~4,600; Aug ~6,300; Sept ~8,400 apprehensions. That’s a major reduction, but it’s not “zero,” and it’s not the same thing as “flow eliminated.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-crossings-immigration-u...
The 249,000 figure you’re comparing it to is typically cited as “encounters” (often BP apprehensions + OFO inadmissibles at ports). That’s a different series than “BP apprehensions between ports.” Apples-to-oranges comparisons are exactly how people accidentally talk themselves into certainty.
“Do you have a better way of estimating?” Not really, that’s the point. Encounters/apprehensions are the best consistently published measure, but they are not total successful entries, and “gotaways” are estimates with their own uncertainty. So the accurate claim is: recorded apprehensions are way down.
On “no headway”: if the unauthorized population fell from 2007 to 2019 (Pew shows that), that’s literally headway, even if it later reversed and is higher now. What you mean is “no net improvement vs 2007,” which is a different claim.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
If you want to say “huge improvement at the border relative to the peak,” totally reasonable. But “flow largely eliminated” + “big dent in illegal-alien stock” is stronger than what these measurements can support.
The claim that ICE exists and is highly funded is not in dispute. ICE has existed since 2002 and the current funding was provided in the Big Beautiful Bill and was never in question.
"Paramilitary" is a subjective assessment.
Anyone being "held accountable" for anything, ever, in the legal system, takes years. Trump has not even been in office (this time around) for a year yet.
The actions you describe as "clearly violating rights" simply do not do any such thing. The rights of American citizens don't work the way that protesters have been implying.
ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. They are explicitly empowered in the relevant law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 , section (a)(5)) to make arrests without a warrant of any person (including citizens) for any federal crime that they actively see happening, and any federal felony on reasonable suspicion.
Which makes perfect sense, because those are things that any other federal law enforcement officer would be able to do, without a warrant, in the same situation.
The Tenth Amendment does not bar federal officers from prosecuting federal crime and does not bar them from being in your state in the first place. It also doesn't give your local law enforcement the right to interfere with them. It only relieves them of the burden of helping to enforce federal law.
Even a Mother Jones article admits it's "not illegal" generally for the ICE agents to wear masks (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/06/ice-immigration...). (Aside from any question of anonymity, in the Good case, the face coverings on agents appear to be fabric appropriate to the near-freezing weather.) Attempts to pass state laws to prohibit the masks are being challenged (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-14/federal-...); I'm not convinced they would matter anyway given the Supremacy Clause.
When protesters are resisting arrest, physical force is sometimes required to enact that arrest. (And it's strange to make this argument about "safety" when many protesters are attempting to endanger the officers as well as counter-protesters and critics.) All the same things would be playing out if you had the same actions taken against state LEO that were trying to enforce state law.
I have thus far seen video footage of the ICE protesters:
* vandalizing unattended federal vehicles and stealing a firearm from one of them
* throwing dangerous objects at officers
* intentionally ramming cars
* boxing in officers on the street
* attempting to booby-trap the area around ICE facilities presumably in the hope of injuring the agents
* repeatedly refusing to leave when officers tell them to leave and there is clearly nothing preventing them from leaving, then resisting arrest when that refusal leads to an arrest
* effectively enacting their own "Kavanaugh stops" (without any legal authority) on other random citizens that they wrongly suspected of being plainclothes ICE agents because they happened to own the wrong model of SUV
* vandalizing the vehicle of counter-protesters while they were stopped at a traffic light, physically climbing onto the vehicle, making threats, and soaping up the front window to obscure visibility (a clear safety threat to everyone)
* running in front of a parked ICE SUV and pretending (very obviously) to get hit by it
* using a loudspeaker at close range next to a counter-protester, in a manner that would clearly cause or threaten hearing damage
And a lot of this directly leads to the situations that they subsequently propagandize.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to interfere physically with law enforcement.
If violence is warranted, the time and place for it is not when they're all together, armed to the teeth, and looking for a fight. It's when they're off duty, alone, and not expecting a confrontation.
The executive lacks the authority to do more than 99% of the things done in 2025. Just about all of it is blatantly illegal or unconstitutional.
But, turns out, there is no enforcement mechanism against any of this. There is nobody that can put a stop to the illegal behavior. The legislative branch and the judicial branch can write sternly worded letters, but they have no army to enforce obedience.
And it's not that "the administration as a whole" wants devastation, but study up on what Stephen Miller wants.
That's probably more to do with homelessness than immigration, so voting Republican is going to make that worse.
Your final point essentially relies on us to believe that because we see evidence of ICE protesters doing things that range from mildly annoying to obstructive, ICE have carte blanche to execute citizens in the street should they be clever enough to manufacture the opportunity for themselves (like walking in front of a parked vehicle of a cooperative, but startled woman).
Your individual points about the technicalities of the actions of ICE being legal or illegal are imo immaterial to the above.
I’ve also seen lots of videos of extremely concerning behavior by ICE agents, like you have seen of protestors. The catch is one group of people are federal agents who can kill you without consequences, and the other group is a wide range of American citizens of varying degrees of intelligence, mental health, and passion that can’t be grouped together into a monolith to prove some point about whether they’re allowed to be executed in the streets.