By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced plans for swift prosecution of “anarchist and Antifa-affiliated groups” allegedly involved in doxxing federal immigration officers in Oregon. These groups, including Rose City Antifa, “Rose City Counter-Info,” and “The Crustian Daily,” are accused of publishing personal information of ICE officers. Noem condemned these actions, characterizing them as support for cartels and human traffickers, and also criticized sanctuary cities like Portland. This statement followed recent events, including public testimony urging the revocation of the ICE field office permit and promises of increased enforcement in sanctuary cities by President Trump’s border czar.
Read the original article here
ICE officers being “doxxed” by antifa and anarchists in Portland, as claimed by Noem, certainly sparks a heated debate. The central point, really, boils down to the idea of public servants and the right to know who they are. If these officers are indeed public servants funded by taxpayer money, shouldn’t the public have the right to know who is employed? The argument goes that if these officers are acting within the law and doing nothing wrong, why would they be worried about their identities being known?
The counterargument highlights that these aren’t undercover agents or secret operatives. Therefore, the public should be able to identify those who are arresting individuals. The idea of “doxxing” public servants is, in essence, a contradiction. These individuals are often already identifiable in their official capacities. The premise rests on the argument that those in positions of power and authority, particularly law enforcement, should be transparent. The fact that salaries of government employees are available to the public supports this viewpoint.
The discussion quickly veers into the political arena, with strong feelings emerging. Some believe that this situation is a manufactured issue to create a sense of victimhood. Accusations are thrown around, with terms like “fascist” and “MAGA” being used to describe opponents. The sentiment suggests that right-wing figures have a tendency to identify “enemies” and create a rallying point. The claim that there is a clear enemy to be battled is a unifying cause, that is used to galvanize the population in support of their cause.
The conversation shifts to the core issue. What is the actual definition of doxxing? It appears to be a misuse of the term. It is asserted that “doxxing” is not the right term. These people have badges, therefore their identities are not secret. Instead, the true complaint should be that it is a deliberate attempt to identify the agents and possibly create problems for them and their families. This, it is implied, is a tactic that the right-wing uses against those they oppose, including judges and politicians.
Those supporting the officers’ exposure of their identities suggest that ICE officers should not be considered secret police. Those officers are seen as acting like masked gangsters. There is no sympathy if they are acting in the manner that has been suggested. The argument is that they are partaking in acts that would be considered illegal. The call for consequences comes from a place of outrage.
The discussion is clearly not one-sided. Noem’s statements and the issue’s framing are called into question. The claim that ICE agents are being doxxed to support human trafficking is debunked. These accusations are seen as a way of justifying the actions of ICE, while, in reality, they’re simply doing what they feel is right.
It is maintained that the officers are carrying out illegal acts. The agents are viewed as being just as vulnerable to illegal acts as anyone else, if the tables are turned. The sentiment is that the officers deserve the consequences of their actions if they are acting outside of the law. The argument stresses the significance of ICE officers and their need to be properly identified.