By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a shooting incident in Minneapolis involving ICE officers, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urged Senate Democrats to block the funding of the agency. The call to action came after an officer shot and killed a man, following a similar incident involving another shooting weeks prior. Ocasio-Cortez cited these events as examples of tyranny and called for Senators to vote against ICE funding, given that DHS legislation requires 60 votes to pass. Minneapolis officials, including the Police Chief, have since called for calm and integrity among law enforcement.
Read the original article here
AOC Calls For Blocking ICE Funding After Officers Kill a Man In Minneapolis: ‘Resist’ | “They need our votes to continue. We cannot give it to them. Every Senator should vote NO,” she added, and that is a pretty clear call to action, isn’t it? It’s a stark response to a truly horrific situation, where ICE officers are alleged to have killed a man after disarming him. The raw emotion in the response is palpable, fueled by the disturbing video footage. The sheer violence, the apparent disregard for human life, and the seeming casualness with which it was carried out, paints a picture of something truly disturbing and alarming. The call to “resist” and the demand that Senators vote “NO” on ICE funding are a direct reflection of that outrage.
This situation reveals a deep-seated fear and a profound mistrust of law enforcement. The accusations are severe, describing an almost “cavalier” attitude towards taking a human life. The comments regarding the justifications offered are dismissed as tired excuses. The perception is that the officers are perceived as cowards and the implication is that this is a symptom of a much larger problem. This isn’t just about a single incident; it’s about the broader issue of how ICE operates and the potential for it to be seen as a de facto militia.
The core argument being made here is that defunding ICE is not a radical act, but a necessary measure to ensure accountability. It’s a statement that suggests the current trajectory is unsustainable. The political ramifications are also noted, with the campaigns of certain figures being deemed “dead on arrival” if they are unwilling to stand against ICE. The call to action is clear, demanding immediate action to stop the funding.
The rhetoric shifts from the initial outrage to a sense of deep disappointment. The comments suggest that existing political structures are failing to protect the public. The perceived inaction of Democrats in the face of what is being characterized as an act of state-sanctioned violence leads to a feeling of desperation. The lack of faith in the democratic process to address this issue is evident. The comments suggest that those who voted to fund ICE have blood on their hands.
The discussion pivots from the particular incident to a larger concern about the direction of the country. The tone becomes increasingly critical of the government’s actions, and the lack of oversight on the part of the governing bodies. There is a sense of betrayal, with the feeling that the government is failing to protect its citizens. The suggestion that western allies should intervene to enact a regime change reveals a depth of disillusionment. The comments question the role of our government and the decisions of its governing bodies.
The comments express a need for action that goes beyond polite reform, focusing on defunding ICE and questioning the role of DHS. The response highlights the idea that the current situation is the result of deliberate choices and actions. The sentiment expressed here is that unless ICE is defunded or dismantled, the country will continue down the path of authoritarianism. This is why the comments emphasize the need to act, to shut down the government if necessary, and to resist the current power structure.
The call to “resist” is amplified, demanding that the authorities be held accountable. The situation is portrayed as an act of murder, with the victim having been disarmed before being killed. It is an execution, and a direct affront to the public. There’s a belief that those who continue to support these agencies are, at best, enabling criminal behavior, and at worst, actively participating in it. The situation demands that action be taken, and that all involved are held to account.