By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following recent shootings by federal officers in Minneapolis and Portland, protests against immigration enforcement were planned across the country. These demonstrations occurred amid the Department of Homeland Security’s largest-ever immigration enforcement operation, with thousands of officers deployed, particularly in the Twin Cities. Protesters, organized by groups like Indivisible, condemned the actions and expressed concerns about safety, citing the environment created by the enforcement. Despite peaceful demonstrations overall, confrontations occurred in some locations, leading to arrests and Mayor Jacob Frey’s warnings against those inciting violence.
Read the original article here
Protests against ICE planned across U.S. after shootings in Minneapolis and Oregon are gaining momentum, fueled by a deep-seated frustration with ICE’s actions and the recent incidents that have sparked outrage. There’s a palpable sense that the existing system is failing, that those in power are not listening, and that drastic measures are necessary to effect change. The core of this unrest stems from a belief that ICE, and by extension, the government, is using its authority in an unjust and often brutal manner, especially in light of the reported shootings.
A recurring theme is the perceived lack of accountability and the urgent need to curtail ICE’s power and budget. Calls for legislation to restrain their authority, which includes a dramatic increase in the size of its budget, three times that of the Marine Corps, are being demanded. The fear is that with such expansive resources, ICE could evolve into a paramilitary force answerable only to the president. There’s a clear demand for greater oversight and transparency to curb potential abuses of power.
There’s a strong push for Congress to address systemic issues within the immigration system. Reform is needed for the structural neglect of immigration courts, providing adequate staffing to ensure that individuals are not unfairly detained or denied their rights. Additionally, there is a call to eliminate the abuse of qualified immunity, and strengthen protections for Fourth Amendment rights and due process. This encompasses concerns about racial profiling and the targeting of specific communities.
Demands for stricter standards in immigration detention facilities are emerging, including limits on administrative holds and improved transparency. There’s a strong sentiment that conditions in these facilities are unacceptable, where individuals are allegedly crowded, with limited access to basic necessities, and a clear call back to the historic Ellis Island as a benchmark of humane treatment. The need for an immediate response from all elected officials is critical.
The call for protests is not just about expressing anger; it’s about forcing a response. There’s a clear understanding that mere demonstrations are insufficient. The emphasis is on sustained disruption and pressure. The strategy suggested is to stay in the streets until those in power are compelled to negotiate and address the demands. There is an expectation that such protests may be met with resistance, including possible attempts to paint them in a negative light.
The narrative suggests that the current environment is heavily influenced by the spread of information via the internet, which bypasses the mainstream media and the traditional propaganda machine. As a result, the emphasis is on a viral media messaging as a way to garner support and spread the message. Protests should be peaceful, but impactful, advocating for tangible changes like demanding that ICE operates with greater transparency, and with masks off.
There are also warnings about how the protests will likely be portrayed by those in power. It’s anticipated that efforts will be made to discredit the protesters and deflect from the core issues. Those in power will call the protesters names. There is the expectation that the Trump administration is heading toward a full-on militarized attack and declaring martial law.
The debate over the most effective form of protest is ongoing. There are strong arguments for the impact of visible, constant presence and the disruption that can create, recognizing that it might be met with force. The importance of maintaining a unified message and avoiding actions that could alienate potential supporters is paramount.
There is recognition of the potential risks faced by protesters, including the possibility of violence and repression. There’s also the feeling that current administration is “robbing us blind.” Despite the challenges, the consensus is that inaction is not an option. The overall message is that the only way to achieve real change is through sustained pressure, unwavering determination, and the willingness to stand up against injustice.