By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to an ICE surge in Minnesota, community leaders, faith leaders, and labor unions organized a “Day of Truth & Freedom” protest, featuring a “no work, no school, no shopping” blackout. The protest, spurred by the killing of an unarmed woman by a federal immigration officer, demands ICE’s removal from Minnesota, accountability for the officer, an end to ICE funding, and investigations into human rights violations. Hundreds of businesses and cultural institutions closed in solidarity, with thousands expected to participate in the action despite dangerously cold weather. The University of Minnesota’s labor unions called for the university system to shutdown to allow students and workers to participate. The Department of Homeland Security responded that they have made over 3,000 arrests in the state over the last six weeks.
Read the original article here
Minnesotans strike to protest ICE surge in state: ‘No work, no school, no shopping’ is a powerful statement, and it’s a concept that resonates deeply. It’s a “proof of concept” as some are calling it, and the hope is that it will encourage similar actions elsewhere. The core idea is to disrupt the status quo, to make a clear statement that the community will not tolerate the actions of ICE. This is a bold move, designed to send a message, and the success of the strike will be critical in determining its impact.
The focus is on disrupting the everyday activities that fuel the economy and provide the infrastructure for society. By staying home from work, keeping children out of school, and foregoing shopping, the strikers aim to make the presence of ICE and its activities untenable. It’s about creating a tangible impact, a financial and social pressure that the government cannot ignore. It’s about hitting the government where it hurts: the pocketbook and the ability to function.
The action is not without its critics. Some question the practicality, worrying about the economic consequences for businesses and families. The concern is that a strike could disproportionately hurt those who can least afford it. Others question whether a single-day event will have a lasting impact. They advocate for longer, more sustained actions. However, the intention is clear: to voice opposition to the presence and tactics of ICE within the state.
The response from the government, according to the provided information, is rather tone deaf, focusing on the purported criminality of some of those targeted. The fact that the largest group in immigration detention are those with no criminal record is a significant point of contention. This suggests that the focus is not on public safety but on some other agenda. The attempt to paint the strikers as protectors of criminals is a transparent tactic. The response clearly misses the point of the protest.
One of the more powerful aspects of the strike is the involvement of cultural institutions, which are closing their doors in solidarity. This demonstrates the breadth of the opposition and shows that the cause is not just a fringe issue but a concern for the community as a whole. It indicates that the protest is not just about the economic impact but also about the values that the community holds dear. The participation of these cultural institutions amplifies the message, making it impossible to ignore.
The argument that this type of action won’t impact ICE, which is not a local entity, is a fair point. But, the strategy here seems focused on the secondary effects, like impacting the government’s revenue stream. The goal is to create financial and social pressure that might lead to a change in policy or a shift in the government’s approach. This is why the involvement of corporations and businesses is so vital.
The concerns about the economic impact are understandable. However, the goal is to make the situation so uncomfortable that action is necessary. The argument that it is a bad time to protest given the current state of the state’s economy is worth noting, but the urgency of the issue may override those concerns. It’s a calculated risk, a gamble that the potential benefits outweigh the possible harms.
The call for broader, nationwide action, including general strikes, underscores the ambition of the movement. The idea is to create a groundswell of resistance that the government cannot ignore. The historical comparisons to the Gestapo and the Sturmabteilung are charged, reflecting the severity with which the protesters view the actions of ICE. It’s a harsh comparison, but one that reflects the anger and frustration of those involved.
The strike will be measured not only by its immediate impact but also by its ability to inspire and encourage further action. The importance of solidarity and mutual support is emphasized, particularly in terms of financial and emotional backing for those participating. It’s about building a movement, creating a community of resistance that can withstand the pressures and challenges ahead. The emphasis on supporting one another is important to the movement’s success.
The suggestion of a bank run to disrupt the financial system is a provocative idea. It’s a way to leverage the power of the people, their financial muscle, without necessarily requiring time off from work. This is a clever approach, that, if carried out, would indeed have serious consequences. It is a creative option for taking financial action.
Finally, the protest is a reminder that the fight for justice is never easy. It requires courage, determination, and a willingness to take risks. It will be challenging, and it is a battle. It serves as a reminder that the powerful will not readily give up their positions.