How many times do you believe immigration agents showed up door to door with riot gear and rifles back then? When it was caught on camera during the Clinton administration it was one of the most polarizing images of his presidency
That one was controversial not because it was the deportation of an illegal alien rather there were custody issues (abduction accusations) as well as the complication of persecution in the home country —in other words there were multiple issues complicating the deportation. Was he a political prisoner, was he abducted to the US?
When the Miami Herald won 2 Pulitzers for its coverage of the incident, do you think it was because people were highly interested in the international custody issues? I’d argue that people were more piqued at why 100+ armed immigration agents needed to raid a family’s home
You might not be aware of it. It was there though. I had friends going to support families in detention in San Antonio in 2010/11.
Consider that it might be possible you're the one who is actually ignoring stuff based on a political position? And that rather than ignoring it on a Dem/GOP line, the line is between "normal, real adult electoral politics" and all the folks actually doing work to oppose these evil things directly.
A lot of my Democrat-voting friend easily forget Standing Rock or Furguson, but I doubt the people who were there do. By the same token, those same things have oft been forgotten or dismissed by the GOP-identifying friends of mine.
The problem is once you start opening a history book (that's not, say, published for teaching children in Texas) it gets really hard to thing to say "the law is static and started 15 years ago" or even "it's a law so it has ethical weight", and those things are hard to track for most folks and the implications are almost traumatic.
I get that your question is real and a struggle, because that's how it is for many folks in my life, well-intentioned and smart folks who were raised in a system that didn't seem like a problem to them because it fit them well enough, or they were so circumcised by it at an early age that they don't even notice what they've been cut away from.
But for a lot of us, the fact that a bunch of yall got together and decided to vote on who to kick out of the places where we live doesn't hae a lot of moral ethical weight.
Consider that one reason half the folks in the us don't vote is because we know that neither side is going to do anything resembling a good outcome and signing our names to things we don't agree with isn't just a lie but makes us complicit in our own expolitation.
And as yall have gotten ever more violent in practicng yalls "democratically produced" decision, those of us who have, like, an actual moral position are moving ever close to emulating John Brown.
So before the death of the protester everyone was honky dori with the deportations? It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens, but there is a large minority that only want criminal aliens deported and a much smaller militant minority that don’t want any illegal aliens deported regardless of severity of crimes committed.
But by the same token - the obstruction of federal agents who are carrying out their lawful mandate was also in that same place.
True, the implementation was messed up. Those unlawful deportation cases should have been the ones to protest. Not demonizing all of ICE or flying Mexican flags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying Mexican flags. Americans fly flags of other countries all the time. There are English flags all over a nearby pub in my area. Heck, there is an entire national holiday for celebrating the Irish—a holiday for which the Defense Department made an exception to its policy of avoiding cultural observances.
The overreach by the current administration is what is driving the volume of protest activity. Specifically the high-volume targeting of lawful residents and Hispanic-looking citizens, and the “show your papers” geographical sweeps—none of which fit typical American notions of what is lawful.
To some extent this overreach is intentional, as an exercise in generating social media content, and to intentionally make people upset as a pretext for deploying greater levels of force.
It also seems politically performative since the current administration is focusing efforts in Chicago, Minnesota, Maine, etc, not Texas or Florida where there are far more undocumented immigrants.
There were protests against the Obama deportation campaign but they were far smaller because the campaign itself stayed within bounds that fit most people’s notions of lawfulness and propriety. They also did not make the huge mistake of deciding in advance to all-out defend every single bad decision by every law enforcement agent. That alone is a huge factor in the pushback that officials are getting, even from GOP and 2A leaders.
Okay let's say it is murder (regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges)
What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Protesting? Civil disobedience? Thought you had freedoms. Freedom means being met with an appropriate legal reaction in case your acts are illegal, not death.
I struggle to understand how you feel that in a free society people can't react to perceived injustices, and act in protest of it. A free society doesn't force everyone to bow down to the powers that be for fear of injury or death.
Empathy, that is what you appear to be missing in your equation. If I see someone about to chuck a baby off a cliff, I hope I step out of my normal comfort zone and do something. In that case it is probably pretty clear, and this one seems grey for some people, but for others, and myself include, ICE is affecting people's lives in ways that is unacceptable and we need to do something.
You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?
Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Maybe an order by another agent to drive off?
But also, it's not hard to see why you can't understand it - because none of the questions are based in reality, all the descriptions are false/twisted, it's like "I don't understand why the fans of that team that lost celebrate the win" when in reality the team won, that's why, easy to understand
>regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges
Disagreement from a class that refuses to disagree with their leader and no charges from the administration that committed the crime.
>What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Presumably they thought the problem was that they were in the way, for which driving off would resolve.
>What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
The purpose of sending ICE there was to intimidate people, and dear leader was quite open about that. So we might rephrase the question as "why does a deliberate intimidation attempt lead people to feel intimidated?"
>It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
Really? So then think of politics like sport, with the dems and repubs being two teams, and ICE being like fans from one team, and protesters are fans of the other, and they go out in the street to support their side. Now imagine that instead of your team losing being completely inconsequential, it could lead to you being poorer, your rights being taken away, etc. Now you understand politics, congratulations.
America started with the Boston Tea Party. If you don't like our allergy to authority that considers itself above us and our God given rights, you are free to leave.
This is very clearly a loaded question and not a good faith one. You are using the format of a question to express a rhetorical position. You can't just tack on "this is an honest question".
Your premise is incorrect. ICE's conduct is illegal, they are executing people in the streets and deporting US citizens. This is against the law. The majority of US citizens did not vote for Trumpin in 2024, and federal elections do not explicitly involve a vote on policy.
Obama actually pioneered non-judicial deportations. Under his administration, 75% of removals took place without the established immigration hearing process.
Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings, that is, a final order of removal being issued by an immigration "judge." This is generally ignored by news reporting.
The news does not contextualize what is going on. Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism. But it's not only a problem with this story, but most stories. Selective outrage is applied based on the cause and enemy du jour. You are honestly better off not watching the news unless you are willing to do extensive deep dives on a topic, because regardless of your party affiliation or personal feelings or what outlet you subscribe to you are being fed a line of propagandistic BS.
> Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism
"Border patrol murders unarmed subdued citizen in broad daylight on film and then lies about it" I think is pretty unprecedented. at least as far as I know.
> Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings
and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
You seem to conveniently ignore the 4th amendment violations and the ignored court orders.
Obama had “fast-track” deportations but also convenient ignore that this administration is doing it under the aliens enemies act which is a wartime authorization and most importantly deporting people to “third” countries.
I personally think that mass deportation is a foolish policy. I also accept that it can be done legally. However, the current actions clearly exceed legal boundaries.
4. The administration is openly slandering citizens - claiming they are terrorists without evidence.
5. ICE is conducting mass surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike.
There are certainly liberals who broadly oppose deportation and who would protest any mass deportation project. However, there, I believe, a lot of us who would grudgingly accept as foolish-but-legal a deportation program that followed the law. What is broadly - across all political stripes - despised is this despotic overreach. And that's what driving people into the streets.
I wasn't outraged until ICE kidnapped two US citizens at gunpoint from their jobs at target, refused to verify citizenship, dragged them away in unmarked vans, beat the shit out of them and dumped them in the snow.
How many times do you believe immigration agents showed up door to door with riot gear and rifles back then? When it was caught on camera during the Clinton administration it was one of the most polarizing images of his presidency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
That one was controversial not because it was the deportation of an illegal alien rather there were custody issues (abduction accusations) as well as the complication of persecution in the home country —in other words there were multiple issues complicating the deportation. Was he a political prisoner, was he abducted to the US?
When the Miami Herald won 2 Pulitzers for its coverage of the incident, do you think it was because people were highly interested in the international custody issues? I’d argue that people were more piqued at why 100+ armed immigration agents needed to raid a family’s home
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-48
https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/dramatic-photo-of...
1 reply →
You might not be aware of it. It was there though. I had friends going to support families in detention in San Antonio in 2010/11.
Consider that it might be possible you're the one who is actually ignoring stuff based on a political position? And that rather than ignoring it on a Dem/GOP line, the line is between "normal, real adult electoral politics" and all the folks actually doing work to oppose these evil things directly.
A lot of my Democrat-voting friend easily forget Standing Rock or Furguson, but I doubt the people who were there do. By the same token, those same things have oft been forgotten or dismissed by the GOP-identifying friends of mine.
The problem is once you start opening a history book (that's not, say, published for teaching children in Texas) it gets really hard to thing to say "the law is static and started 15 years ago" or even "it's a law so it has ethical weight", and those things are hard to track for most folks and the implications are almost traumatic.
I get that your question is real and a struggle, because that's how it is for many folks in my life, well-intentioned and smart folks who were raised in a system that didn't seem like a problem to them because it fit them well enough, or they were so circumcised by it at an early age that they don't even notice what they've been cut away from.
But for a lot of us, the fact that a bunch of yall got together and decided to vote on who to kick out of the places where we live doesn't hae a lot of moral ethical weight.
Consider that one reason half the folks in the us don't vote is because we know that neither side is going to do anything resembling a good outcome and signing our names to things we don't agree with isn't just a lie but makes us complicit in our own expolitation.
And as yall have gotten ever more violent in practicng yalls "democratically produced" decision, those of us who have, like, an actual moral position are moving ever close to emulating John Brown.
That's easy. In the same place all the murdering from ICE agents during Obama era was.
So before the death of the protester everyone was honky dori with the deportations? It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens, but there is a large minority that only want criminal aliens deported and a much smaller militant minority that don’t want any illegal aliens deported regardless of severity of crimes committed.
It is absolutely not the case that 60% of the population wants all non-citizens deported. On what do you base your claim?
17 replies →
But by the same token - the obstruction of federal agents who are carrying out their lawful mandate was also in that same place.
True, the implementation was messed up. Those unlawful deportation cases should have been the ones to protest. Not demonizing all of ICE or flying Mexican flags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with flying Mexican flags. Americans fly flags of other countries all the time. There are English flags all over a nearby pub in my area. Heck, there is an entire national holiday for celebrating the Irish—a holiday for which the Defense Department made an exception to its policy of avoiding cultural observances.
The overreach by the current administration is what is driving the volume of protest activity. Specifically the high-volume targeting of lawful residents and Hispanic-looking citizens, and the “show your papers” geographical sweeps—none of which fit typical American notions of what is lawful.
To some extent this overreach is intentional, as an exercise in generating social media content, and to intentionally make people upset as a pretext for deploying greater levels of force.
It also seems politically performative since the current administration is focusing efforts in Chicago, Minnesota, Maine, etc, not Texas or Florida where there are far more undocumented immigrants.
There were protests against the Obama deportation campaign but they were far smaller because the campaign itself stayed within bounds that fit most people’s notions of lawfulness and propriety. They also did not make the huge mistake of deciding in advance to all-out defend every single bad decision by every law enforcement agent. That alone is a huge factor in the pushback that officials are getting, even from GOP and 2A leaders.
4 replies →
Okay let's say it is murder (regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges)
What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Protesting? Civil disobedience? Thought you had freedoms. Freedom means being met with an appropriate legal reaction in case your acts are illegal, not death.
I struggle to understand how you feel that in a free society people can't react to perceived injustices, and act in protest of it. A free society doesn't force everyone to bow down to the powers that be for fear of injury or death.
Empathy, that is what you appear to be missing in your equation. If I see someone about to chuck a baby off a cliff, I hope I step out of my normal comfort zone and do something. In that case it is probably pretty clear, and this one seems grey for some people, but for others, and myself include, ICE is affecting people's lives in ways that is unacceptable and we need to do something.
25 replies →
You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?
Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.
3 replies →
> park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
> run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
Do you seriously believe pulling a gun and killing somebody is an appropriate response to such actions?
Because if you do, that is a dangerously authoritan attitude.
1 reply →
> What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Maybe an order by another agent to drive off? But also, it's not hard to see why you can't understand it - because none of the questions are based in reality, all the descriptions are false/twisted, it's like "I don't understand why the fans of that team that lost celebrate the win" when in reality the team won, that's why, easy to understand
>regardless that there is broad disagreement and no charges
Disagreement from a class that refuses to disagree with their leader and no charges from the administration that committed the crime.
>What drives someone to feel emboldened to park their car in the middle of an ICE operation and then attempt to drive off after being told to stop?
Presumably they thought the problem was that they were in the way, for which driving off would resolve.
>What drives someone to run around spitting and kicking out lights on an ICE vehicle?
The purpose of sending ICE there was to intimidate people, and dear leader was quite open about that. So we might rephrase the question as "why does a deliberate intimidation attempt lead people to feel intimidated?"
>It's like I can understand why someone is a sports fan, despite not following sports myself. I can fully understand, although I don't support, why someone would join the Taliban or Tren De Aragua or whatever other group. I can understand those things. But I still struggle to understand the above.
Really? So then think of politics like sport, with the dems and repubs being two teams, and ICE being like fans from one team, and protesters are fans of the other, and they go out in the street to support their side. Now imagine that instead of your team losing being completely inconsequential, it could lead to you being poorer, your rights being taken away, etc. Now you understand politics, congratulations.
America started with the Boston Tea Party. If you don't like our allergy to authority that considers itself above us and our God given rights, you are free to leave.
>no charges
This seems a bit disingenuous
I predict that no matter what people say here you will still struggle to understand.
where were the murders of civilians lawfully protesting?
This is very clearly a loaded question and not a good faith one. You are using the format of a question to express a rhetorical position. You can't just tack on "this is an honest question".
Your premise is incorrect. ICE's conduct is illegal, they are executing people in the streets and deporting US citizens. This is against the law. The majority of US citizens did not vote for Trumpin in 2024, and federal elections do not explicitly involve a vote on policy.
Further, people who are 30 now were 15 in 2010.
How often did ICE violate the 4th Amendment under Obama? How many court orders did they ignore? How many people were deported without due process?
Obama actually pioneered non-judicial deportations. Under his administration, 75% of removals took place without the established immigration hearing process.
Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings, that is, a final order of removal being issued by an immigration "judge." This is generally ignored by news reporting.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairn...
The news does not contextualize what is going on. Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism. But it's not only a problem with this story, but most stories. Selective outrage is applied based on the cause and enemy du jour. You are honestly better off not watching the news unless you are willing to do extensive deep dives on a topic, because regardless of your party affiliation or personal feelings or what outlet you subscribe to you are being fed a line of propagandistic BS.
> Indeed, you can safely strike the word "unprecendented" from almost all journalism
"Border patrol murders unarmed subdued citizen in broad daylight on film and then lies about it" I think is pretty unprecedented. at least as far as I know.
> Many (most?) ICE deportations taking place today are after "due process" "judicial" hearings
CITATION NEEDED.
3 replies →
almost no one is getting due process today
and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
You seem to conveniently ignore the 4th amendment violations and the ignored court orders.
Obama had “fast-track” deportations but also convenient ignore that this administration is doing it under the aliens enemies act which is a wartime authorization and most importantly deporting people to “third” countries.
3 replies →
I personally think that mass deportation is a foolish policy. I also accept that it can be done legally. However, the current actions clearly exceed legal boundaries.
1. ICE claims the power to enter homes with out a warrant. And has done so: https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2026/01/judge-orders-release-....
2. ICE / DHS are shooting protesters. This is not a legal response to a protest.
3. ICE is ignoring court orders at an unbelievable rate: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...
4. The administration is openly slandering citizens - claiming they are terrorists without evidence.
5. ICE is conducting mass surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike.
There are certainly liberals who broadly oppose deportation and who would protest any mass deportation project. However, there, I believe, a lot of us who would grudgingly accept as foolish-but-legal a deportation program that followed the law. What is broadly - across all political stripes - despised is this despotic overreach. And that's what driving people into the streets.
I wasn't outraged until ICE kidnapped two US citizens at gunpoint from their jobs at target, refused to verify citizenship, dragged them away in unmarked vans, beat the shit out of them and dumped them in the snow.
Obama deported criminals only and mostly at the border.
AFAIU, ICE is also deporting mostly criminals, no?
A majority of recent detentions are of people without a criminal record.
> According to DHS data, about 29% of those detained by ICE in January had criminal convictions, down from about 54% last February https://www.factcheck.org/2026/01/as-ice-arrests-increased-a...
14 replies →
No. That is not the case. The majority of deportations are of non-criminals.
4 replies →