If all those things happened in Spain where I live, I'm 99% we'd have actual riots on the streets, together with a lot of other unpleasant-but-needed civilian action, until things got better, like we've done in the past (sometimes maybe went slightly overboard with it, but better than nothing).<p>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?<p>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.
First, all of what you say is true. I'm going to try to add a little context as someone who is here on the ground, in the city in question.<p>There is the imminent threat of mass death, and no one here is under any illusions about it.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Wish us luck, we're trying.
It's also worth noting that one function of brownshirts and blackshirts is to provoke violence against themselves, seeking to retroactively justify their existence and to justify a further crackdown.<p>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.<p>And as you said, many of us are still convinced that this can be solved at least partially rhetorically and electorally.
Hence the tactical frivolity Portland approach. <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/10/22/trump-ice-portland-no-kings-protest" rel="nofollow">https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/10/22/trump-ice-port...</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_frivolity" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_frivolity</a><p>It's the social media evolution of non-violent confrontation, with the similar goal of making it impossible for <i>any</i> 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).
> but we still have some real elections coming up,<p>Unless the president declares a permanent temporary state of emergency for whatever reason that would prevent such elections.
There is no precedent for this. The executive lacks the authority. It would require Congress to enact a law, and this is easier said than done. The states run elections, and while the feds have some input on how elections for federal office are conducted, it is quite limited.<p>The vast majority of the population is relying on these protections holding.
Right, at which point I think many of us would be less concerned with optics.
Thank you a lot for taking the time to share what you see there, I really appreciate it. All we can hope for is that it gets better, and that there are genuine people out there who care about others in their community, who all help each other when needed. It's really sad to hear about the realization of how quickly it could spiral but considering the situation, it's real and make sense. Thank you and good luck!
Last night a man was shot by ICE agents, who were (reportedly) attacked with shovel(s) while trying to capture the man, injuring one ICE agent.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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
>Last night ICE agents were attacked with shovels, injuring one. A man was shot.<p>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.
Well said, thank you, and keep safe.<p>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.<p>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.
>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.<p>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 ...
Well done, thank you.
You put that perfectly, well done. I may bookmark this and show it to every person that says something like "why not just start throwing bricks".<p>Good luck. Is there anything those that aren't living in ones of these towns can do to help in impactful ways?
This was a really interesting comment and it's definitely made me re-think my outsider perspective. Thanks for posting it and good luck.
> Why are Americans so passive?<p>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.<p>The other half of the country is as dumbfounded/shocked as the rest of the world.<p>This isn't like the French revolution where a majority of the country was suffering and rose up against the few.<p>This is very nearly 50% of the country wants to make the other 50% squirm.<p>It cannot be understated the role that Fox News has played to get us to this level of division.<p>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.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hSysuwHw4KU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hSysuwHw4KU</a>
I know what you mean about the country being split politically, but I think using the 50% number is a misleading illusion. Only 31.8% of the voting-age population voted for Trump, so 68% did not vote for these policies.<p>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.<p>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.
As someone who was waving a "fuck ice" flag on a street corner in rural Colorado yesterday as part of our weekly protest of their facility, anecdotally I'd say about 60% of the 100 or so cars I watched looked away, with about 30% showing some active support and the other 10% or so showing active opposition.<p>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.<p>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.
> It cannot be understated the role that Fox News has played to get us to this level of division.<p>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.<p>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: <a href="https://www.dearkellyfilm.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dearkellyfilm.com/</a>
I remember 5 years ago americans said same things about russian civil unrest. No grand penalty for violent rioting, you can get off with just prison time!<p>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.
This is anecdotal, America is geographically quite large. For a lot of people, where these events are happening are more than a days drive away (10 hours or more), it's not happening "here".<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I count myself mostly in the "holding out for elections" group but a little bit part of the fatalistic group as well. The really sad part of the whole experience is how many people I know that support everything that is going on, and they are not in any way claiming ignorance.
A broad answer: because America is more violent. The ICE officers are armed and absolutely will use their weapons if given half a chance to. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think any rioters in countries like Spain go to a protest with a bet real chance on their minds that they might die.
> Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think any rioters in countries like Spain go to a protest with a bet real chance on their minds that they might die.<p>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.<p>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.<p>> The ICE officers are armed and absolutely will use their weapons if given half a chance to<p>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?
Americans are much more comfy than Iranians are though. As much as Americans might dislike what's going on, they're not fighting got their own survival.<p>Democracy, authoritarianism are all abstract and vague concepts
The people who love the second amendment are the ones that support the president. Most of them would gladly shoot me or you if their president told them to. In fact, a significant portion fantasize about being able to shoot other Americans and get away with it.
This is one half of the country holding the other half hostage. Despite what you think, there are many protests going on. But a lot of Americans simply agree with what is happening.
Democracies are vulnerable to many things: populism, vote-rigging, importing migrants to vote for a given party, and much more. Without a reboot, many democracies slide into autocracy. First, the government bans weapons, then curtails civil rights under the guise of child protection, offending religious sensibilities, blocks websites, and gradually tightens penalties for free speech. It all happens gradually. And suddenly you can't write your opinion online without being arrested. The UK is a case in point. Unarmed people are doomed to change things not only in authoritarian countries, but even in nominally democratic ones. Examples include peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests in Iran, Belarus, and Russia in the struggle against the authorities. Peaceful protests without the support of the army and the elite always end in failure. Another example is the protests in the UK against the influx of Muslim migrants, where the authorities support the latter.
> <i>Unarmed people are doomed to change things not only in authoritarian countries, but even in nominally democratic ones. Examples include peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests in Iran, Belarus, and Russia in the struggle against the authorities. Peaceful protests without the support of the army and the elite always end in failure.</i><p>I'd take issue with that, because once it becomes an armed conflict then the full power of the state military will be deployed.<p>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.<p>The only winning move for a populace, then, is to try and keep resistance sub-armed conflict (and avoid being bated into armed resistance).
> 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?<p>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.<p>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.
(White) Americans of the center and left have long since lost the conviction that you may just need to bleed for your children’s freedom. It’ll come back, hopefully not too late.
The thing is, to most white Americans, <i>their</i> childrens' freedom isn't at stake. The majority of white voters have always supported Trump, and probably support ICE, whereas most of the rest simply don't don't consider it their problem.<p>And unfortunately that probably won't change until ICE kills more of them and <i>makes</i> it their problem.
You are right that America isn’t going to fix this problem until Trump supporters feel the pain. It is coming, but I’m afraid of what we will have to go through to get there.
> The thing is, to most white Americans, their childrens' freedom isn't at stake.<p>It absolutely is at stake, they just haven’t realized it yet. (Insert obligatory “first they came for” quote.)
> 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?<p>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.
Zero of the Federalist papers corroborate this.
The Federalist papers were campaign ads for ratification of the base Constitution from a faction opposed to adding a Bill of Rights (an opposition explicitly stated in the Federalist Papers; it was, in fact, the central theme of Federalist #84.)<p>They are neither a reliable summary of the motivations for the provisions they support <i>nor</i> any kind of argument for the provisions in the Bill of Rights.
>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,<p>What kind of revisionist history is this?<p>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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of the Cherokee forced relocation from Georgia, the Georgia state government told the federal government (Andrew Jackson) that if the gold-bearing lands weren't depopulated of indigenous peoples then the state would start killing them (after already having terrorized them with armed state militia).
That's 20+yr later and an entirely different generation of politicians though, a far cry from the "we'll just slip this in here so we can harass the red man" that the person above is alleging. And it was done with state backed forces, not like they would have been handicapped by lack of a 2a.
In Minneapolis and other cities, you do have protests, you have the people following ICE, and it's a valid discussion to have that without the protests and the "mostly peaceful" resistance from Minnesotans is helping the nation see what criminals ICE people are, and what an awful thing they're doing to the country.<p>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).<p>If, for example, a brigade of soldiers or officers opened live fire on protesters, I think the country would shut down.<p>Another point, as others have mentioned: It's actually the massive amount of armament on both side of the equation that <i>keeps</i> 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.<p>edit: There are some people already exercising their rights loudly. See: <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1qdnmhv/philly_black_panthers_confront_pigs_and_protect/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1qdnmh...</a>
Just shows that the second amendment is an obsolete idea, and in today's real world it's more likely to oppress people's right to protest than help them fight tyranny.<p>ICE goons can shoot people because in America, law enforcement officers shooting citizens is thoroughly normalized. It's normalized because law enforcement officers <i>getting shot</i> 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.
This....<p>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.<p>The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.
Grandpa's 30-06 from WW2 from 200 yards will penetrate anything but trauma plates.<p>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."<p>> The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.<p>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.
They didn't just have muskets at that time, repeating firearms were just too expensive to outfit entire armies with them. When you can supply 10 guys with muskets for the same cost as 1 guy with a repeating firearm, you pick the 10 men even if the 1 guy can fire just as fast.
> The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.<p>Second amendment was written for children in schools.
Then it's useless and should be abroged.
This is chicken-or-the-egg reasoning. Maybe the reason such violent behavior is unthinkable by a hypothetical Spanish LEO is because past protest has been so strong?<p>My counter-hypothesis is that America has never really known authoritarianism, religious wars, etc., so Americans are, on average, more supportive of Authority.
Yeah, I think your last point is a good one and something to consider too. Large part of our perspectives are shaped by what we've experienced, and what our predecessors experienced, and if you don't have the experience of walking through mass-graves created by the government executing dissidents, you don't have a frame of reference for that being a possibility.
So, from my perspective, there were in fact a number of "religious wars", but the folks who lost all ended up on reservations or murdered and in mass graves. I mean 650K folks died in the mid 19th century in a single 5-year war. And that's not counting how we might code the Atlantic slave trade or the post-reconstruction violence, or labor violence into that history.<p>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:<p>"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".<p>That is, consider that the obverse of your claim might be true:<p>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.<p>I find that idea to be a very easy way to understand why white folks are so passive and pro-authority.
> My counter-hypothesis is that America has never really known authoritarianism<p>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.<p>TL;DR:
<a href="https://x.com/i/status/1131996074011451392" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/i/status/1131996074011451392</a><p>This is NOT what America is about. America is about <i>opens history book</i><p>uh oh<p><i>Frantically starts flipping though pages</i><p>uh oh. oh no. no no no. uh oh
If you think that America and Europe have similar experiences with authoritarianism, I guess we just don't share basic ground truth. The fact that you are flip about it is just silly, and makes you seem unserious.<p>Have a good day!
> If you think that America and Europe have similar experiences with authoritarianism<p>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 <i>orientation</i> 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 <i>intensity and overtness</i> of that particular flavor of authoritarianism.<p>This is, in fact, very different from the European experience.
sure. but to me it seems like the there was this vain hope that somehow we could thread the needle. that if we would accept to unjustice and stick it out, that eventually the courts and electoral process would be robust enough. that escalation would just lead to where we've already gotten, where peaceful protestors are being killed for 'disrepect'. that somehow pointing out all the obvious falsehood and gaslighting would be enough to convince people that this was going sideways. this was always going to end in martial law, but our complacency is generational.
We had nationwide riots for months back in 2020 over a police officer murdering a suspect, and that resulted in approximately zero actual political change. During the recent shutdown over the budget, we had one of the largest protests in the country’s history and massive shifts towards the opposition in elections followed by them immediately folding in exchange for essentially nothing.<p>The political class is very well insulated from the popular will in this country, and I fear we may be nearing the boiling point.
The politicians on the right are not well insulated -- they are <i>very</i> responsive to what their constituents' popular will is, to a fault. The left still hasn't figured out what the hell they're going to do next. Probably just continue the "we aren't Trump!" chanting and hope that's enough to win elections. Meanwhile their own constituents are just as frustrated with status quo as the right was.
I'd say a couple of reasons:<p>- 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.<p>- 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?
> 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.<p>Has it? Because I recall a bunch of people gathering in the wrong building on Jan 6
... yet still tens of millions of eligible voters don't even bother<p>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<p>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
I think a general strike might be effective for low-density places, though that requires enough people taking part to make it truly effective. That way you don't need an obvious place to protest apart from your workplace and it'd be a non-violent protest that would definitely get the attention of the wealthy.
American here; studied and lived in France and participated in some big protests there. The US just doesn't have the protest/strike culture that Europe has, it's not part of our tradition; the majority of people don't even know how or understand the implications...Also most cities in the US are built for cars , not pedestrians and people on the street.
You should read James Baldwin. Or read up on the debates post revolutionary war in the United States about the French revolution.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>But ultimately you can't muster more force than the state. If that is your only suggestion then it's a fruitless one.
American life is so much more distributed than European life.<p>Population density and the gigantic geographic distance make these kinds of events feel "remote" even if they are happening in our same state.<p>It's a 17 hour drive from Atlanta, Georgia to Minneapolis for example.<p>On top of that, a lot of Americans are just barely surviving financially, so they are in full bunker mode just making rent.<p>It's a scary time to rebel.
> American life is so much more distributed than European life.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>"My country is large" isn't an excuse to not stand up against tyranny, not sure in what world it would be.<p>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.
> 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.<p>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.
>South of Spain to the North of Sweden to take 50 hours, more or less the same.<p>That would be like driving from Key West to Prudhoe Bay which looks to be 91 hours.<p>Sorry the US is big spread out place, but I also agree it's not really an excuse for what's happening.
> That would be like driving from Key West to Prudhoe Bay which looks to be 91 hours.<p>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 :)
They weren't comparing the entire US to all of Europe. They were comparing Minneapolis and Spain.
Plenty of Minnesotans have come out to protest, just like in other cities where ICE is active. Many people outside the cities, even just in the suburbs, haven't seen any of it at all and it's just something that's happening on TV that doesn't really exist to them. I've never seen an ICE officer in my life, despite living in a area with many immigrants from the Middle East. Minneapolis might as well be Spain to most Americans.
You need to specify what you mean by "more than". Last night ICE agents were attacked with shovels, injuring one. A man was shot.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Many locals on social media are cheering on the shootings. America is <i>incredibly</i> 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.
Americans have had 100 years of stable government and in the past political solutions have eventually been enacted. The Civil Rights bill was passed. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam. I think a lot of people are still expecting sanity to return. I hope they're right.
You've got three groups here. Federal cops, undocumented immigrants and the kind of people who turn out to protest the former acting against the latter. Very few people in this country finds any one of these groups particularly sympathetic and there's wide demographic swaths of the country that actively hate two if not all three of them. So yeah, everyone sees stuff that's very, very, wrong here, but nobody's really in any rush to intervene except the people who already are protesting.<p>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.<p>Edit. To be clear, I'm talking about the people who are actually <i>physically</i> involved here.
There are more than three groups. What about the group of people who are unhappy that masked goons are violently arresting citizens? What about people unhappy that ICE stopped a naturalization ceremony literally minutes before they were to become citizens?
Undocumented immigrants? They’re just violently yanking random nonwhite people off the streets and figuring out who’s who later: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/ice-immigration-target-minnesota" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/ice-immigrat...</a><p>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.
> Why are Americans so passive?<p>Because it’s cold? Here in Minnesota it’s 17F / -7C. Factoring in the wind chill it feels like 7F / -14C.<p>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.
Imo, there is too much of an individualistic culture here. Where I am people live for twenty years and barely even know their neighbors.
A shocking number of Americans not only think all of this is great, but they wish it was them out there shooting their neighbors.
Americans are not passive. Look at the videos of any of these incidents. People are supporting those under attack, collecting evidence, and protesting. The message is clear.<p>Peaceful protest is the key. Riots, violence, and fighting are not peaceful and only play into the administration's aims.<p>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.<p>Through such peaceful protest as we see, America will overcome this.<p>The big question is, what next? How to hold people accountable, fairly, while rebuilding the system and rebuilding trust?
Those things work in democratic and ordered societies though, and you need to figure out other approaches when democracy and freedom stops being something the government still cares about. The current leader of the country attempted an insurrection, yet was still allowed to become the leader after that? I think you're beyond being able to change this through just peaceful protests, although it's definitively a part of the answer.<p>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?
Yep, in all EU countries, this would lead to country wide protests with the usual result being the fall of the government and new elections. Seems like the US is missing this element of democracy.
Because I have a kid to take care of. A job I need to keep, and a way of life I'd like to maintain. Because it's not happening where I live (yet).<p>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.<p>Also, this whole checks and balances thing we learned about in school will surely kick in sometime soon...
> Because I have a kid to take care of. A job I need to keep, and a way of life I'd like to maintain.<p>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.
Because <i>actually</i> defending those things requires violence and I shy away from that. Sitting on the sidelines and protesting doesn't do a damn thing. It just makes the maga people laugh harder. Case in point: our own president sharing an AI video of himself wearing a crown and dumping feces on protestors.
Fair, avoiding violence is usually not the way to go, so fair point.<p>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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>That's fair. And I'm talking about it right now and everywhere else I can in safe ways.<p>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.
If nothing else, thank you for sharing your honest perspective, I appreciate it :)<p>> 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.<p>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.
The MAGA people I've seen drive by at protests seemed pretty angry.
The same reason you guys don't just deal with any of the big problems facing Spain that collective action would solve pretty quickly?
What physical government oppression have I missed now? I'm not trying to claim Spain is perfect, because it really isn't, especially considering "freedom of speech" (depending on your perspective of it) and some other things Americans might take for granted.<p>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.
My point is that what Americans face here is a collective action problem, which is no different than many of the problems facing Spain. While you might go out and protest, there are other collective action problems you're not solving today, even though you could if you took action as a group.
[flagged]
ICE is going door to door in some neighborhoods looking for non white people. US citizens have been arrested and detained, sometimes violently, and then released with no charges. So yes, our way of life is being threatened.
[flagged]
Here is an example of ICE invading a home without a warrant, reported by Fox. [0] That is definitely against our way of life.<p>Your list of crimes is just as prevalent in white people. Statistically immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born citizens. Undocumented immigrants commit even fewer violent crimes [1]. So if we're doing house to house searches for criminals we should start with citizens.<p>0 - <a href="https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-family-demands-judicial-warrant-federal-agents-raid-jan-2026" rel="nofollow">https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-family-demands-judicia...</a><p>1 - <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD004.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG...</a>
Not the most compelling case:<p>> Gibson is a 38-year-old Liberian citizen, who has a final immigration removal order dating back to 2009.<p>> Statistically immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born citizens<p>Legal ones, yes - they have a lot to lose. Can you please cite any study positing the same for illegal immigrants?
Illegal aliens are shown to commit more crimes than citizens when time is given to determine immigration status. [1]<p>> Studies purporting to show low illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas fail to account for the fact that illegal immigrants are not always identified immediately upon arrest. In many cases, illegal immigrants are identified only after they are imprisoned. Given sufficient time for data collection, it appears that illegal immigrants have above average conviction rates for homicide and sexual assault, while they have lower rates for robbery and drugs.<p>There is also the question of how many illegal aliens actually exist in the US, which severely complicates calculation of rates for their population.<p>Your pdf is a repost of the exact study (Light) cited here as being flawed.<p>[1] <a href="https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality" rel="nofollow">https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal...</a>
"Is the argument that Minnesota isn’t emblematic of those issues or that those issues can’t be investigated because a “non white” community is involved with it?"<p>The issue is that you can’t randomly break down citizen’s doors without a warrant. Minnesota is only targeted because some rightwing TikTok asshole decided to """investigate""" daycare fraud and they wouldn’t let a creepy rando into their facilities for some reason.<p>"As for citizens being detained, interfering with and obstructing a law enforcement operation will get you detained, whether it’s ICE, FBI, or your local cop on a traffic stop."<p>Who were these guys obstructing? Why were they treated like criminals? <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/ice-immigration-target-minnesota" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/ice-immigrat...</a><p>What crime did these tear-gassed children commit? <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/fathers-six-children-in-hospital-after-ice-agents-throw-tear-gas-at-their-car-amidst-minneapolis-protests-13494538" rel="nofollow">https://news.sky.com/video/fathers-six-children-in-hospital-...</a>
> Are any of those things threatened and need defending?<p>If you don't think authoritarianism or fascism actually has a way of harming those things, then no, I guess not.<p>I think for most people who had to learn about these things in school growing up, for like 7 years or something, together with grandparents who experienced these things for themselves, it's pretty clear what's happening, but without actually having that perspective, I could understand it feels like "What is everyone so upset about? Doesn't seem so bad".
It’s a disservice to the horrors of the Holocaust to implicitly compare returning Mexican nationals to Mexico, Somalis to Somalia, or hell, even Venezuelans to El Salvador with sending box cars of people to death camps.<p>The US has had and enforced immigration laws for decades, with Obama alone deporting 3 million people.<p>What aspect of Trump doing it is uniquely fascist/authoritarian?
> What aspect of Trump doing it is uniquely fascist/authoritarian?<p>Short non-extensive list:<p>Has enforcement been explicitly prioritized based on political control of areas? Yes, senior directives and public statements emphasized prioritizing deportations in Democratic-led cities.<p>Suppression of lawful civic activity? Yes, crowd-control force was repeatedly used against protesters, media, and observers near ICE facilities.<p>Have officials labeled resistance or disputed encounters as "terrorism"? Yes, senior DHS leadership publicly used "domestic terrorism" language in contested use-of-force cases.<p>Are there credible reports of physical or sexual abuse? Yes, civil-rights groups report detailed allegations at detention facilities<p>Are raids conducted with armored vehicles, masks, and heavily armed teams as standard practice? Yes, reporting documents armored vehicles, masked agents, and surge-style operations.<p>Have internal watchdogs or ombuds offices been dismantled or defanged? Yes, DHS eliminated or reduced multiple civil-rights and detention-oversight offices.<p>Has ICE expanded use of spyware, location tracking, or similar tools? Yes, contracts for advanced spyware and surveillance capabilities were activated and expanded.<p>Is enforcement content coordinated to generate viral political narratives? Yes, internal messages show coordination to amplify arrests and raids for public impact.<p>Is ICE currently exhibiting multiple indicators of a political-police / coercive-repression trajectory? Yes, politicized targeting, coercive force, anonymity, weakened oversight, surveillance expansion, political messaging.<p>Would you like me to go on? I have a couple of more, but I don't want to spam.<p>Do Americans not learn about fascism and authoritarianism in school when you grow up? Together with what to watch out for and more? Because it seems really obvious for us who did have that upbringing.
> Do Americans not learn about fascism and authoritarianism in school when you grow up?<p>Like, in historical names and dates, sure.<p>In terms of process, signs, and systemic issues? Not really, even before the recent push in many parts of the country to make the curriculum even more friendly to, particularly, white nationalist authoritarianism, historical and more current.
>Has enforcement been explicitly prioritized based on political control of areas? Yes, senior directives and public statements emphasized prioritizing deportations in Democratic-led cities.<p>Florida, Texas, and others use local law enforcement to enforce immigration detainers and cooperate with federal enforcement. Makes sense to <i>go where the problems are</i>.<p>>Suppression of lawful civic activity? Yes, crowd-control force was repeatedly used against protesters, media, and observers near ICE facilities.<p>Crowd control is used against riots and unlawful assemblies frequently: see G8 summits, Seattle May Day, Ferguson, and any time a sports ball team loses a contentious game in LA.<p>>Have officials labeled resistance or disputed encounters as "terrorism"? Yes, senior DHS leadership publicly used "domestic terrorism" language in contested use-of-force cases.<p>And? Homeland calling an assault on an officer terrorism is hardly surprising, and is still less weird than the idea that using the wrong pronouns is a hate crime.<p>> Are raids conducted with armored vehicles, masks, and heavily armed teams as standard practice? Yes, reporting documents armored vehicles, masked agents, and surge-style operations.<p>So when Clinton’s BP raided Elian Gonzalez, it was fine because it wasn’t Trump? Remember, the question was “what is Trump doing that is unique”.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Goldman_and_Elian_Gonzalez.jpg#mw-jump-to-license" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Goldman_and_Elian_Gon...</a><p>> Has ICE expanded use of spyware, location tracking, or similar tools? Yes, contracts for advanced spyware and surveillance capabilities were activated and expanded.<p>Domestic spying by the federal government has been a thing for 100 years. Again, we’re talking unique.<p>> Is enforcement content coordinated to generate viral political narratives? Yes, internal messages show coordination to amplify arrests and raids for public impact.<p>Every task force, raid, and “crackdown” by law enforcement, even down to an organized enforcement against DUI, is intended to create that perception.<p>Do non-Americans not learn that the federal government has engaged in this conduct for 100 years?<p>We’ve enforce immigration laws, policed our populace, and had to balance 1st/4th amendment rights against the interest of a functioning state for a long time.
> So when Clinton’s BP raided Elian Gonzalez
That followed a court order. And many people were very upset about it.<p>>We’ve enforce immigration laws, policed our populace, and had to balance 1st/4th amendment rights against the interest of a functioning state for a long time.
Nothing on this scale since the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII. And even that did not involve (AFAIK) the mass disappearances and torture of thousands of people.
You do yourself a disservice by having a storybook version of the Holocaust in your head. It did not start with gassing and boxcars of people. Relative to how things turned out, the victims were treated quite "humanely" at first. The problem is that they were completely dehumanized, which made mass murder the "obvious" choice once resources and logistics started to get strained.<p>There was a recent story that described cramped jail cells full of dozens of wailing and weeping detainees while ICE agents nearby were laughing. We’re seeing dehumanization happen here at an alarming pace. And already, the administration seemed to relish sending noncriminal migrants to foreign torture/rape camps for essentially a life sentence. The components are all there for a repeat of the recent past. Will they coalesce? What’s going to stop them?<p>Remember: most Nazis were not gleeful, cackling sadists. They were normal-ass bureaucrats who'd been conditioned to see their victims as non-human.
So you don't do anything because you have a job you need to keep and a kid to take care of, but you're perfectly okay with moving to a completely different country on short notice?
Yes because one of those can get my face smashed in by a baton. Moving is a far safer option for my family.<p>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.
Just curious, do you have dual citizenship? If not, what's exactly your plan to acquire a legal resident status quickly, and where?
The US, for better or worse, isn't a cohesive country of people interested in a collective, but a smash and grab of economic gains sourced from those who are forced to live in it and cannot flee to developed countries. You come to it, or stay in it, to make more income you would in developed countries at the detriment of everyone else.<p>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?"
>If it gets too bad I'll move my family elsewhere.<p>They're talking about starting wars with the rest of the occidental world. There won't be a elsewhere where you'll be welcome.
That is a very Russian way of solving the problem.
I think it's something different than "Americans are passive" - rather, many of them/us perceive the context of what you're seeing very differently. I can share some of this perspective though I don't insist it's the only way to feel.<p>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.<p>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.<p>3. There are plenty of people protesting and violently rioting if that's what they feel like.
I don’t think data supports this. Polling has shown a lot of people who voted Republican in 2024 (Latinos especially) have snapped back again already, at least partially <i>because</i> of what ICE is doing.<p>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.
I would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.<p>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.
> The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone.<p>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 would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.<p>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.
> 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.<p>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.<p>Further, I don't understand how <i>what</i> 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".<p>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"?<p>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.
> > 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.<p>> 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.<p>So just to clarify, GP said he was being prevented from _working out_, i.e. exercising.
> How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working?<p>Not working; working out.
[dead]
> it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved<p>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.<p>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?
There is a huge difference between turning people away at the border and tallying a "deportation", and removing people from the interior of the US.<p>The flow of illegal aliens crossing the border has largely been eliminated. [1]<p>> should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?<p>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]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o</a><p>[2] <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-negative-net/story?id=129175522" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...</a>
Your sources don’t say what you’re claiming.<p>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.” <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o</a><p>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. <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-negative-net/story?id=129175522" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...</a><p>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. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...</a>
I saw you were briefly downvoted but you're correct. The number and % of illegal immigrants in the us has shot up in an unprecedented way during the prior administration, meaning whatever techniques could be argued to have worked earlier (although to your point, did they work?) may not be adequate to current scope of problem.
A shanty town? In Brooklyn? Yeah, all those hipster trusties who couldn't afford Manhattan (but can still drop 5k a month on a studio in BedStuy or Williamsburg) are really making things bad there.<p>You ever visited Brooklyn back when it was actually a tough place?
Where is there plenty of people violently rioting?
I suspect that these people misattribute poverty and urban decay to illegal immigration when it’s largely a home-grown issue -- in large part due to a concerted effort from right-wing media to slander those immigrants.
What people voted for 14 months ago and how ICE is being used are two different things. Polling shows a majority of Americans do not support how ICE is behaving and do not feel like it is making them safer. There are not plenty of people "violently rioting" at this point. Blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents isn't rioting. If you want to see what violent riots look like, see the Iranian footage.
I think your second part of the most makes my point -- most americans are overall OK with what's going on because of the underlying issue. That's why it doesn't look like Iran.<p>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.<p>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.
I live in Europe, in an immigrant ghetto. Well, I'm not sure whether the word "immigrant" is correct, because most residents are second or third generation and have passports.<p>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.<p>When voting, immigration policies are for me #1 issue. I just don't want the entire Europe to look like this.
You got downvoted for stating your experience in a way that feels unpalatable to someone who doesn't have to deal with this. But your story is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If you live in MN or somewhere else that's drastically changed in this way in recent years, you're (a) thrilled that someone is finally doing something and (b) just not gonna be super upset about things that go wrong in the process even though obviously you don't want them going wrong.
[dead]
<i>I'm 99% we'd have actual riots on the streets</i><p>A riot is exactly what they want.<p>This is all about getting locals upset enough to break things, so the administration can justify sending in the military.<p>Rioting just gives them what they want.<p>This is a tried-and-true tactic employed by thugs throughout history.
Why then don't people unite against the dominance of not very friendly and culturally alien migrants, Muslims?
To be fair, Minneapolis is raising hell and has been for the last week. There have been many protests in other cities as well.<p>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.
They'll still murder millions of you for not being fascists if you stay passive, you're just making it easier for them.
I keep hearing this idea that boiling over lets them double down, but at the same time, it is not acceptable to let them keep doing what they do. Once the government starts using physical violence against the people and openly violating constitutional law, there is no choice, but to push back.<p>But that pushback can look different. Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.
> Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.<p>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.<p>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.
>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.<p>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.
That's true, when workers are not aligned with each others, some get confused who is actually on your side vs against you, and frequently they believe the upper-class will protect them and provide them with support and wealth. I don't think I even have to share examples of how this works out in practice, yet for every revolution it keeps happening with the same results more or less.<p>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 also don’t get why the Democrat leadership is caving in on funding the government. An indefinite shutdown is called for at this point until the train of ethnonationalist authoritarianism is stopped.
Totally fine with general strikes, particularly for the business that are accommodating and providing logistical services for ICE. Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet).
The government is built around a monopoly on violence - that’s kind of the point.<p>Claiming that government using violence to enforce the law and function of the government is some redline seems a bit silly and incompatible with any approach to government outside anarchism.
You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect.<p>If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected.<p>2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution?<p>The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosses the line into rioting or obstructing government operations.<p>The Fourth has allowed for brief questioning, reasonable suspicion, and the recent Vasquez Perdomo emergency order held that these recent stops are constitutional - so even your “checks and balances” idea is working against you, as multiple branches of government are in concurrence here.
The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.<p>On “what actions violate the Constitution”: you’re also overstating what’s been “held.” An emergency order/stay is not a merits ruling that a policy is constitutional; it’s often just “this can proceed for now while litigation continues.” And the fact that multiple branches haven’t stopped something yet doesn’t mean checks and balances are “working”, it can just mean they’re failing in slow motion, which is exactly the scenario the founders warned about.<p>As for the specific amendments: time/place/manner doesn’t cover suppressing disfavored speech under pretext, and reasonable suspicion can’t be race/ethnicity-by-proxy or broad dragnet logic. If you want to argue the recent ICE-related tactics are clearly constitutional, cite the exact language you’re relying on and I’ll read it. But “emergency order exists” does not equal “constitutional on the merits.”
>…the Constitution they wrote and endorsed…restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens.<p>Sure, it does now, but your original statement was “You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers”. But, do remember the founding fathers didn’t seem very concerned about the early government’s treatment or protections of many groups of people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have needed:
The Bill of Rights
Amendments 13,14,15, and 19
The civil rights act
Title 9, etc<p>>Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.<p>Sure, and those protections aren’t being violated, as evidenced by the Supreme Court holding that doesn’t even find enough risk to the plaintiffs to temporarily pause these enforcement actions. Just like they also agreed that TPS could be ended, parole could be ended, 3rd country deportations were allowed, etc.<p>At a certain point, when Congress doesn’t care to legislate against it, the Supreme Court via rulings/shadow docket allows it to continue, and the President authorizes it, the action is legitimate.<p>You can not like it, and you’re welcome to vote against it in the midterms and in 2028, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.<p>Just as emergency order doesn’t equal constitutional, complaints about enforcement of existing laws does not equal unconstitutional.
You’re conflating three different things: (1) founders’ personal moral failures, (2) the legitimacy theory they articulated, and (3) what an emergency posture from SCOTUS actually proves.<p>On (1) vs (2): yes, the founding generation tolerated massive injustice. That doesn’t refute the point I was making. The Enlightenment idea they leaned on is that rights pre-exist government and government power is delegated and limited. The later amendments you list aren’t a rebuttal to that framework, they’re the country painfully applying it more consistently over time via the mechanisms the Constitution itself provides.<p>On the Court point: “SCOTUS didn’t temporarily pause X” does not equal “no constitutional violation.” Emergency stays/injunctions turn on things like posture, standing, likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and deference; not a full merits finding that the challenged conduct is constitutional. “Shadow docket lets it continue” is not the same as “the Court blessed it.”<p>And the biggest issue is your last paragraph: legitimate does not equal constitutional.<p>Congress failing to act, the President authorizing something, and courts not immediately stopping it may show the government has the power to do it right now; it does not show the action is within constitutional limits. If that were the test, then any coordinated abuse across branches would become “legitimate by definition,” which is exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent.<p>If you want to argue “these protections aren’t being violated,” then argue the specifics: what’s the standard being used for stops, entries, detentions, and removals, and how is it being applied? “It’s enforcement” is not a constitutional analysis.
You’re just trying to robe your personal idea of what’s constitutional in some fairytale amalgamation of modern social justice and enlightenment writings.<p>The reality is simple: the founding fathers did not and would not care that illegal (or heck, even legal) African immigrants were being arrested and deported, as evidenced by the fact that many of them literally held slaves. So, your opening position that I “should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers” is wrong.<p>To checks and balances, the current state of government action is ironically in line with how those founding fathers would want government run.<p>Hamilton: “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority”. If the courts don’t see fit to constrain this exercise of power, it’s within the authority.<p>Washington himself led a militia against the Whiskey Rebellion, since the members were using intimidation, violence, and obstruction to impede a government function (wow, sounds familiar…)<p>Turning back to the present day, the standard being used is simple: The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person
believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1).
Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for
questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned
. . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” 8 CFR
§287.8(b)(2) (2025); see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U. S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266, 273 (2002). The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on
the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni-
Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273.<p>If you want to argue these protections are being violated, you should probably make a stronger case than the one before the court that’s likely to lose. I’ll defer to the Supreme Court for constitutional analysis, as the founding fathers intended.
You’re still dodging the point by arguing founders’ personal depravity instead of the political theory they articulated: rights don’t come from government, authority is delegated, and it has limits. The fact that many founders violated their own principles doesn’t erase the principles, it proves why limiting doctrines and later amendments were necessary.<p>And the “they wouldn’t care” claim is overstated even on its own terms. The founders were divided and inconsistent, but several explicitly condemned slavery and/or refused to participate in it:<p>Jefferson (who was deeply compromised personally) still wrote this about slavery’s corruption and consequences:<p>> “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever…” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII (1784), as transcribed by Encyclopedia Virginia)<p>Jefferson also documented that Congress removed an anti–slave trade passage from his draft for political reasons (i.e., to get unanimity):<p>> “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves…” (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography (1821), as reproduced by Monticello / Avalon Project)<p>John Adams:<p>> “my opinion against it has always been known… and never in my Life did I own a Slave.” (John Adams to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley, Jan. 24, 1801; Gilder Lehrman Institute primary source)<p>So no, it’s not accurate to collapse “the founders” into “they endorsed whatever abuses you can point to.” Some did; some didn’t; many were hypocrites; but the rights-and-limits framework is real, and it’s the framework the country later used to correct (some of) those failures.<p>On Hamilton: yes, courts are an intermediate body. But it does not follow that “if the Court doesn’t stop it (especially on an emergency posture), it’s therefore within authority.” Courts can be wrong, courts can be procedural, and emergency orders are not merits adjudications. “Not enjoined today” is not the same thing as “constitutional.” If that were the rule, coordinated abuse across branches would become self-legitimating (exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent).<p>Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is a non sequitur. Nobody is arguing the government can’t enforce laws or respond to violence. The question is whether current enforcement is staying inside constitutional rails.<p>And on your legal citations: sure, INA authority exists. But statutory authority doesn’t dissolve the Fourth Amendment. Your own lead case, Brignoni‑Ponce, is precisely about limits: reasonable suspicion has to be based on specific articulable facts, and it can’t collapse into ethnicity/race-by-proxy plus “totality of circumstances” handwaving.<p>So let’s keep it concrete: what specific factors are officers using in practice to form reasonable suspicion, and what safeguards prevent that from becoming a dragnet? “The INA authorizes questioning” is not an answer to whether particular stops/detentions are constitutional.<p>Finally: “I defer to the Supreme Court” is fine as a personal posture, but it’s not an argument that the Constitution has no redlines unless five Justices say so on a given day (especially not on the shadow docket).<p>> “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” (Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
We don't have the memory of the end of an authoritarian regime only fifty years in our past.
We're not passive, they would shoot us in the head
Americans aren't passive: we actively did this. The rioters are in the masks and uniforms. We went so far out of our way to arrive at this godforsaken idiot collapse.
Y'all got guns over there?
I'm guessing that the lady laying on her horn protesting ICE doesn't have many (or any) close friends/family
spain isn’t a great example here. it has some of the most racist fans football has ever seen and yet there’s no action. only italy probably compares. if there was a government agency going after black and brown people (ie non-white) i wouldn’t bet on the spanish population to come to their rescue. lamine yamal, a young footballer of moroccan descent hasn’t been spared the vitriol of the spanish hooligans even though he was top 3 best player at the recent euro (where he helped spain to victory).<p>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.
Sad as it is, I think Spain only barely makes it into the top 10 on the UEFA racism ranking. Serbia, Hungary and Israel are probably the top contenders, with Albania and Poland completing the top 5.
> lamine yamal<p>Hah, funny you bring up the name of a neighbor :)<p>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.
I've read multiple comparisons between US groups like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys and hooliganism in terms of the culture and demographics. Similar backgrounds, similar attitudes, similar behaviors (get smashed, go start fights). It's just more overtly political here rather than being organized around a sports fandom.
> Why are Americans so passive?<p>Decades of copaganda paired with police brutality. A fairly large portion of americans view anyone with a badge as "the good guy" by default.<p>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.<p>> Are people inside the country not getting the same news we're getting on the outside?<p>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.<p>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.
man honestly all this stuff pisses me off but I'm just trying to survive over here in my own life. Got friends from all over but no one is really ready to put their life on the line. Like, most disagree with Trump's agenda, many find it offensive, but bottom line is staying healthy, finding work, paying bills, taking care of ppl immediately around you is more important.<p>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.
Isn't the same true of in the EU though? Immigrants and refugees from Syria were treated quite harshly and has led to a significant rise in far right parties across Europe. These parties are actively harassing immigrants and non-white groups. But there doesn't seem to be riots in the streets over it.<p>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.
> These parties are actively harassing immigrants and non-white groups. But there doesn't seem to be riots in the streets over it.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>> So things are more fresh in the minds of citizens and they are more likely to fight them<p>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.
We are very weary of that in Europe. I consider it to be the case thag the "Rechtsruck" (sudden movement to the right) is a global phenomenon. Alls the right extremist are orienting themselves after the model of what Trumpism is doing which at least thats true for my personally, is why I am ver y concerned of what is happening kn the US. I grew up to a jazz sax playing father to whom the culture the GI brought here was progressive and related to freedom. It feels loke that idea of the US is dead now.
As to why this phenomenon is happening - i would speculate that it has to do with the polarisation that is happening in the face a ever faster progressing disintegration of the social fabric into technology accompanied by the prospect of a scarcity of resources caused by an impeding breakdown of the biosphere and the climate system with which it coevolved plus on a more local scale an extreme increase of inequality of wealth distribution.
Not attacking you OP, but oh look, the top comment again concern trolling the topic to something else less inconvenient. It's wild how common that is on HN.<p>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.
Minneapolis mayor told protestors to remain peaceful. The Democrats always want to follow the rules even when the other side has abandoned them. To be fair to Mayor Frye though, Trump wants to provoke rioting to invoke the Insurrection Act, which he threatened to do today if the Democratic officials don't "fall in line". So there is that.
Americans aren't passive. 40% of the people are openly fascist and support this.<p>Just look at this site as a sample set.
<p><pre><code> 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
</code></pre>
-- Martin Niemöller
There are a lot of differences. Americans are not being passive. For one thing, reasonable or not there is still a lot of faith in the election process and many are expecting all this craziness will put Republicans on a back seat for decades. For another, these ICE groups are well armed and operate in numbers. Many Americans are also armed and have deep misgivings about political violence and where this is headed. Where you see "passive" many of us see "knife edge". Also, many live staying busy and near exhaustion to start with and have trouble coming to grips with just how bad this is as no one has ever shown this much contempt for laws without consequences. There is an expectation that the constitution will hold any test. And those following closely understand that just about everything Trump has done including tariffs are illegal and the courts are closing in.<p>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.
[dead]
[flagged]
There are plenty of examples of peaceful protestors being attacked by ICE and Americans being locked up simply for not producing papers on demand.
> I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement agents anywhere would tolerate these actions without similar response.<p>It’s interesting that that’s your perception. In a lot to countries it’s very rare for the police to kill anyone in the sorts of circumstances you’re describing.
Interesting. How do they deal with things like people driving cars towards them?<p>That’s the only fatality situation in the current unrest.<p>Another protester was shot yesterday, the agent was being attacked with a snow shovel and a large stick. The protester was shot in the leg ( not fatal ), which is sometimes suggested as a less permanent way of stopping such an attack.
They’re arrested and charged with appropriate offenses, e.g. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyg3j2kvzdo.amp" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyg3j2kvzdo.amp</a><p>Renee Nicole wasn’t driving a car at anyone, but regardless, it is stupid to shoot someone who’s driving a car at you as it won’t stop the car. What you need to do in that situation is get out of the way.
The truth of that can be seen in the recordings where the car is driving away from the ICE person, till it crashes violently into a mast or something after the driver (Renee Nicole) was shot by the ICE person.
Here are several English cops run down with cars.<p><a href="https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2025/may/arrest-made-after-officer-injured-during-alleged-hit-and-run/" rel="nofollow">https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/...</a><p><a href="https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/simranjit-kajla-attempted-murder-christopher-miller-police-b2758344.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/simranjit-kajl...</a><p><a href="https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-01-28/teen-charged-after-police-officer-run-over-by-car" rel="nofollow">https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-01-28/teen-charged-aft...</a><p>Your comments on these?
We disagree on the facts of the case, so we’re not going to be able to progress further.<p>Good day.
That was an aside because I think inaccurate summaries of what happened in the videos should always be corrected, however bad MAGA want to post truth this.<p>But the question we were discussing was whether or not it was normal in other countries for police to shoot the drivers of cars as a means of stopping them. So no agreement on the facts of the Renee Nicole case is required.
[flagged]
> Why would I want to riot over immigration enforcement enforcing immigration laws?<p>So you are not seeing the same news the outside world are seeing? Is there censorship happening? Because what we're seeing, isn't "enforcing immigration laws", it's brutal murder of civilians, together with actually being worse at getting people out of the country. Obama did a better job at kicking out illegals, yet without these public broad-daylight murders. How does that compute to be "enforcing immigration laws"?
>So you are not seeing the same news the outside world are seeing?<p>Yes. Me personally, at least, in that I don't watch broadcast television at all. Hell, quite alot of it from the same links and tweets you click on. No Fox News or anything like that, but I suspect that if I gave you my personal opinions you'd swear that I was parroting those outlets. (Something I've noticed all my life... most people can't accept that I might independently arrive at the same conclusions.)<p>>it's brutal murder of civilians,<p>I watched it from 5 angles. It wasn't murder, it was self-defense. Open and shut. Cars are deadly weapons, she pointed the car at him as if she was bullet-proof. Found out otherwise. Everything to the contrary is sophistry. "Sure, she waved a gun around, but she didn't point it at his face!" and so forth. He had milliseconds to react, but he's supposed to see the wheels that he's not looking at turned away and he's supposed to care when on a Minnesota road with a bad driver and slush the direction the wheels point might not even matter.<p>>Obama did a better job at kicking out illegals,<p>Perhaps. So? If Trump appoints him deportation czar, I won't object.<p>>yet without these public broad-daylight murders. How does that compute to be "enforcing immigration laws"?<p>Plainly false. Did you bother to look this up? Not only were federal agents accused of this during his tenure, several of them were ICE and CBP in manners similar to what we're seeing now. Maybe the news outlets you favor didn't bother to report those, selectively.
I am pro-immigration-control, in a pretty strong sense. Not "anti-immigration", since it's a valuable tool when controlled properly, but I believe we have not been properly controlling it, by a long shot. The consequences have been disastrous, so I sympathize with the desperation and anger born from that.<p>But no amount of sympathy can excuse the general behavior of ICE and the stain it leaves on the idea of the USA. In this case - I have watched all the same videos, and there is simply no way to view that murder as clearly self-defense without leaning on a pre-decided hatred of the victim as an "enemy".<p>Just as the left's ideas on immigration are clouded by idealism in the name of anti-racism, the right's ideas on immigration are clouded by racism. What's best for a society lies somewhere in between, and at this point may require some tough enforcement, yes, but ICE is not enacting that - they are just enacting the right's hatred, terrorizing America in an un-focused, illegal, immoral, violent, unprofessional manner. As Americans understandably push back against that (as Americans are famous for), you will get escalating messes like this.
[flagged]
The deep irony in your comment is that every view you’ve expressed is itself informed by the propaganda you have been viewing.<p>ICE are detaining American citizens. It’s been documented countless, countless times. The killings they have committed are clearly debatable in their justification. Staying they are justified does not make it so.
> you are receiving propaganda just like everyone else. It's filtered and manipulated to make the US appear worse than it is.<p>Of course, I realize that all news I read, from CNN, Guardian to Reuters, Fox and White House press release all have biases. Reading both sides gives you the in-the-middle perspective you need, and I recommend everyone to do the same, even if some sources like Fox are kind of hard to get through sometimes, but it's important to read both sides of every story.<p>> "Extra judicial murders" are federal ICE officers justifiably defending themselves. ICE is in Minneapolis and many other cities to deal with a huge population of illegals that need to be deported as expressed by the popular will of our recent democratic election.<p>ICE agents defending themselves isn't exclusive with "extra judicial murders", you can defend yourself but do so in the wrong way. You don't have permission to execute anyone you think <i>might</i> harm you, then the situation would be much worse.<p>Instead you have "proportional force" or similar, and I guess that's up to each observer to decide what they think that is, because it seems like the courts aren't even gonna have their input considered about it. Hence the "Extra judicial" part.
[flagged]
A pervasive "Someone needs to do something!!!" attitude is why. Americans will forever wait for the school principal to come and get everyone into trouble
Americans have wanted the border fixed for around a century.
Fixed like Putin is "fixing" his borders through immoral violence, murder, oppression, ...? (Trump's regime are mimicking it well.) Or do you mean something else?<p>Are you saying USA, in the majority, is still imperialist? Is still racist? Is still white supremacist?
How is thugging around Minneapolis fixing the border in any way?
Authoritarians always use some out group as a scape goat for problems to be fixed by a strong man who isn't restrained by the law.